The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) – Live streaming of court hearings

How and why are court cases being streamed online?

Most cases from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) are live-streamed on the judiciary’s YouTube channel.
Live-streaming of selected cases began in 2019 to improve public access to, and understanding of, the work of the courts. We are working towards making it possible for all appropriate cases to be live streamed.

View previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page. 

Tuesday 27 – Thursday 29 January 2026

(1) Pfizer Inc & anr (Appellants) v The Competition and Markets Authority (Respondents) (external link)

(2) Flynn Pharma Ltd & anr (Appellants) v The Competition and Markets Authority (Respondents)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 18 March 2025, Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited appeal with the permission of the Competition Appeal Tribunal “the Cat”) the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal dated 20 November 2024.

In December 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fined Pfizer £84.2 million for charging excessive prices for the anti-epilepsy drug phenytoin sodium, contrary to Article 102 TFEU and Section 18 of the Competition Act 1998.

The CAT set aside CMA Decision I in Phenytoin I (2018) and ordered a reconsideration of the tablet market issue, which the Court of Appeal upheld in 2020. The CMA then issued a second infringement decision in 2022.

The CAT in Phenytoin II upheld Pfizer’s grounds of appeal and set aside CMA Decision II. However, the CAT dismissed Pfizer’s appeal by re-making an infringement decision under paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 of the Competition Act 1998.

(2) On 18 March 2025, Flynn Pharma Limited and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited appealed the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s 20 November 2024 decision, with the Tribunal’s permission.

In December 2016, the CMA fined Flynn Pharma £5,164,425 million for charging excessive prices for the anti-epilepsy drug phenytoin sodium, contrary to Article 102 TFEU and Section 18 of the Competition Act 1998.

The CAT set aside CMA Decision I in Phenytoin I (2018), remitting the abuse issue because the CMA had not adequately considered the tablet market. The setting aside and the remittal were upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020. The CMA adopted its second infringement decision in 2022 (“CMA Decision II”).

The CAT in Phenytoin II upheld Flynn Pharma’s grounds of appeal and set aside CMA Decision II. However, the CAT dismissed Flynn Pharma’s appeal by re-making an infringement decision under paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 of the Competition Act 1998.

Tuesday 27 – Wednesday 28 January 2026

(1) Midland Premier Properties & anr (Appellants) v Doal & ors (Respondents) (external link)

(2) Midland Premier Properties & anr (Appellants) v Doal & ors (Respondents)

(1) By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 30 October and sealed on 31 October 2024, the Appellants appeal the Business and Property Courts in Birmingham’s order of 13 September 2024, which struck out their Defence under an Unless Order and denied relief from sanctions; alternatively, the Judge struck out the Defence.

The Respondent claims that a loan agreement was entered into on 24 January 2020, whereby the Respondent loaned the First Appellant £1.5 million to acquire a development property.

The Respondent claimed the loan was made as part of a deal which would see the Respondent share in the profit made from disposal of the property. It was the Respondent’s case that the Appellants participated in a scheme to dispose of its interest in the property for no consideration. The Respondent claimed the Appellants had conspired to induce a breach of the agreement.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 13 February 2025, the order dated 24 December 2024 with permission granted by order dated 23 January 2025.

This matter is linked to the Appeal above and arises from the same dispute.

Tuesday 27 January 2026

Phillips & Anr (Respondents) v Garraway & Ors (Appellants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed and sealed on 4 February 2025, the Appellants appeal an order from Hastings County Court dated 8 January 2025.

Issue: whether the order erred in law in finding that the tenancy is not an assured shorthold tenancy because it falls within paragraph 3 or 3A of Schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. Extent of protection afforded by Housing Act 1988. Appellants ask to consider the definition of ” rent” in the Housing Act 1988.

Wednesday 28 – Thursday 29 January 2026

Zaha Hadid Ltd (Appellant) v The Zaha Hadid Foundation (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 8 April 2025 and issued on 14 April 2025 the Appellant Zaha Hadid Limited, appeals the decision of the High Court dated 20 December 2024.

In 2013, the architect Dame Zaha Hadid (now the Zaha Hadid Foundation), “the foundation”, and Zaha Hadid Limited, “the company”, agreed a trademark licence allowing the company to use the “Zaha Hadid” marks in exchange for a royalty payment.

After Dame Zaha’s death, the company wanted to terminate the licence agreement; however, subject to unilateral termination rights in favour of the foundation, the agreement was indefinite in duration.

The company argued that the licence agreement should be read to include bilateral termination rights on reasonable notice. The company said that these rights existed in addition to the foundation’s express termination rights set out in the agreement.

Wednesday 28 January 2026

Dana Astra IOOO (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant (Claimant below) appeals an order dated 11 February 2025 which dismissed the Claimant’s application for a court review under s.38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 seeking an order setting aside its designation under the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

This is a case about economic sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State on an entity registered in Belarus. That entity is the Claimant company, Dana Astra IOOO (“DANA”) a  real estate and construction company in Belarus. It was designated by the Secretary of State as an entity subject to sanctions pursuant to the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (“the 2019 Regulations”). The Secretary of State’s position is that the Government of Belarus, under the control of President Alexander Lukashenko, has been responsible for serious human rights abuses, as well as electoral malpractice on a systematic basis.

Wednesday 28 January 2026

Gluck (Appellant/Claimant) v Endzweig & anr (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed and issued on 14 March 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 21 February 2025.

Issue – whether correction of an award of a Beth Din (Jewish rabbinical court) under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”) is time limited, and the meaning of correct an award in s.57(1) of the Act.

Wednesday 28 January 2026

AB (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals an order from the Upper Tribunal dated 5 August 2024 refusing an application for order as to costs.

The costs application was made after a consent order dated 12 April 2024 which followed the grant of entry clearance. Costs were awarded to the Appellant in the terms of 75% given the submissions made by both parties with regards to the delays and the new evidence provided.

Thursday 29 January

N (A Child)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 30 May 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the Family Division of the High Court, dated 08 May 2025. The Appellant appeals the Costs Order made against him within private law family proceedings. A stay of execution is also requested in respect of the part of the order that requires the Appellant to make payment on account of £192,793.50 within 14 days of the date of the order.

Thursday 29 January

Ferrara (Appellant) v Ferrara (Respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 August 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the Family Division dated 11 July 2025.

The judgment concluded there was jurisdiction to consider the divorce petition filed by the Respondent, and that the Respondent had a domicile of choice in England. The judge ordered the first directions appointment in respect of the Respondent’s financial remedies application be listed on 18 December 2025.

 The Appellant also appeals the judge’s decision to lift a stay in relation to the Respondent’s divorce application and her financial remedies application. The order stayed the divorce application only if the Appellant’s Notice was filed by the Appellant by 4pm on 1 August 2025.

Court 4

Court 63

Court 67

Court 68

Court 69

Court 70

Court 71

Court 72

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75

Court 1 Rolls Building

Court 17 Rolls Building

External links

UK Judiciary YouTube Channel (external link)