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.
Thursday 23 October 2025
LR (a child by mother and Litigation Friend LC) (appellant) v Coventry City Council (respondent) (external link)
The appellant appeals the order of HHJ Tindal dated 4 February 2025 by which he allowed the Appellant’s judicial review claim in part, quashing the Respondent’s Defendant’s assessment under the Children Act 1989. The Appellant is a child and the case is brought through her mother and litigation friend.
The Appellant’s family have ‘no recourse to public funds’, namely no access to the mainstream benefits and housing systems due to their restricted immigration status. They are supported by the Respondent local authority with subsistence payments. A judicial review challenge was brought in relation to the Respondent’s assessment of the family’s neds and the level support provided to the family.
Thursday 23 October 2025
Rogerson (appellant) v Erhard-Jensen Ontological/Phenomenological Initiative Ltd (respondent) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 September 2024, the Claimant appeals against the order made by the Employment Appeals Tribunal sealed on the 20 August 2024.
The judge struck out detriment 3 from the Claimant’s whistleblowing detriment case as being protected by judicial proceedings immunity. The proceedings were remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the outstanding issues.
Thursday 23 October 2025
(1) Veliks (defendant/appellant) v Playtech Software Ltd (claimant/respondent) (external link)
(2) Realtime SIA (4th defendant/appellant) v Playtech Software Ltd (claimant/respondent)
Both appeals are filed by the defendants below who appeal the decision of the Honourable Mr Justice Thompsell, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, sitting in the \business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List, judgment being delivered on 18 December 2024 following trial.
This action concerns allegations of misuse of confidential information relating to online gambling games developed by the Respondents (Claimants below).
Tuesday 28 October 2025
(1) Nisar (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)
(2) Mammedov (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)
(1) Appeal against the order of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 21 March 2024 refusing the application for an order as to costs.
The appellants applied for a visa to the UK which was refused. The respondent agreed to make a decision by 21 August 2023, which was missed by one day and on the same day proceedings were lodged. On 13 September 2023 the parties entered into a consent order to withdraw the application and submissions to be made on costs.
The Judge found that both parties were at fault, having not communicated with each other over a days delay, therefore both could have taken steps to avoid the proceedings. Therefore no costs were ordered.
(2) Appeal against the decision of of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 18 June 2025 making no order as to costs.
The applicant challenged the Home Office’s delay in making a decision on his entry clearance application. Although the application had been refused twice in late 2024, the Home Office had agreed to reconsider it following pre-action letters. However, after failing to issue a decision by the agreed deadline, the appellant filed for judicial review. The Home Office then issued a decision.
The appellant sought costs, arguing he had achieved the outcome sought. The Home Office opposed, citing non-compliance with the pre-action protocol and arguing that the judicial review did not directly lead to the decision.
Judge Hirst acknowledged that the appellant had obtained the remedy sought and could be considered the successful party. However, due to the appellant’s failure to properly follow the pre-action protocol specifically, not issuing a new pre-action letter addressing the delay the judge made no order as to costs.
Tuesday 28 – Wednesday 29 October 2025
Khan (appellant) v Khan and others (respondents) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice file on 25 October 2024, the Appellant (Defendant below) appeals the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Saira Salimi dated 6 November 2024 following hand down of the judgment on 4 October 2024.
The Claimants and the Defendant are the six siblings. The eldest child is the Defendant. The claim concerns the beneficial ownership of four properties (“the Properties”). The Claimants claim that it was always their father’s intention that the beneficial ownership of the Properties should be shared between his children and seek orders for sale of the Properties. The Defendant’s position is that he always intended that he, as the eldest son, should be the beneficial owner of the Properties and denies that any of the Claimants have any entitlement to the Properties.
The Claimants were successful and orders for sale were granted.
Tuesday 28 – Thursday 30 October 2025
HM Revenue and Customs (appellant) v Malde and another (respondents) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 January 2025 the Appellant (Appellants below) HMRC, appeal the decision of Mr Justice Edwin Johnson and Judge Ashley Greenbank, sitting as a Judges of the Upper Tribunal, judgment being delivered on 7 November 2024.
It is HMRC’s case that SA and Global were involved in the fraudulent diversion of alcohol into the UK from the EU by a process known as “inward diversion fraud” resulting in unpaid VAT and excise duties.
As a result of an investigation, HMRC concluded that SA and Global were controlled by Mr Malde, and that SA and Global had evaded VAT and excise duties on alcohol supplied in the UK by falsely declaring that the goods were destined for other EU countries or were in duty suspension.
Mr Malde appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) against each of the personal liability notices (“PLNs”) and the director’s liability notices (“DLNs”) that were issued to him, and also against the assessments made against Global by HMRC. The FTT upheld the appeals. HMRC appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal (“UT”)
HMRC now appeal the UT’s decision.
Tuesday 28 – Wednesday 29 October 2025
(1) Hapag-Lloyd AG (respondent) v Skyros Maritime Corporation (appellant) (external link)
(2) Agios Minas Shipping Company (appellant) v Hapag-Lloyd AG (respondent)
By two Appellant’s Noticse filed on 24 January 2025, the Appellant Owners Appeal the Order, dated 13 December 2024 of Bright J sitting in the Commercial Court allowing the Respondent Charterer’s Appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in relation to an arbitration award.
The matter came before the Judge as an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in relation to two arbitration awards.
The disputes dealt with two materially identical timecharter charterparties. The two vessels “MV Skyros” and “MV Agios Minas” were owned by the Defendants below. In these appeals, the Appellants are the Owner of MV Skyros and of MV Agios Minas (collectively “Owners”). The Claimant in the court below (appealing against the Arbitration Award) is the Charterer of both vessels. The Charterer is the Respondent in both appeals before this court.
The issue concerns damages for late delivery of the vessels in circumstances where it is common ground that, even if the Vessels had been redelivered on time, Owners would not have rechartered them and earned further hire.
Tuesday 28 October 2025
HM Revenue and Customs (appellant) v Evonik UK Holdings Ltd & ors (respondents) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 22 August 2024, the Appellant (Defendant below), appeal the decision of Mr Justice Richards, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 18 June 2024 and 1 August 2024.
Tuesday 28 October 2025
By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 1 August 2025, the appellants appeal the order, dated 26 June 2025, of Mellor J sitting in the Patents court giving declaratory relief in relation to the Appellants breach of FRAND obligations.
The underlying proceedings concern standard essential patents (SEPs) under the ETSI framework, which requires licensing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms.
Both the Applicant and the Respondent own SEPs and had a previous cross licence agreement that expired in 2023.
Whilst the parties agree that the balance of a new cross-licence agreement will leave the Applicant as the net payee, the parties have been unable to agree the terms of a new cross-licence.
Wednesday 29 October 2025
Majera (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)
In a determination promulgated on 5th October 2023 the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT) found that the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) had erred in law in not considering all circumstances to assess whether there were very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions. It set aside the decision of the FTT and directed that there be a further hearing in the UT.
By a determination promulgated on 2nd May 2024 the UT dismissed the appeal after conducting an Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise. The deportation order should not be revoked despite the lapse of time since the offence. Very compelling circumstances over and above the S.117C exceptions were not shown and there were not very significant obstacles to integration in Rwanda.
Wednesday 29 – Thursday 30 October 2025
By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 14 January 2025, the Appellants appeal the Order dated 9 December 2024 of Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge dismissed the Claimant’s claims.
The dispute relates to payments due further to contracts made between 2013-2016 between the Claimant and Defendant for the supply of crude oil and the true interpretation of the contracts and the settlement agreement.
Wednesday 29 October 2025
The Appellant (Claimant below) Emeraldshaw Limited, appeals the decision of HHJ Judge Klein, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 22 October 2024.
Sheffield County Council (“SCC”) is the rating authority responsible for the collection of National Non-domestic Rates (“NNDR”) for the Premises in question. SCC were informed that the Appellant had entered into tenancies with a third party known as ‘Space to Help (Yorkshire)’ which was a limited company but owing to its charitable objects has an exemption from using the word limited in its name.
SCC served NNDR bills on the appellant who continued to assert it was not liable and did not pay. SCC served reminder notices and ultimately, SCC issued summonses for the two hereditaments in question. Those summonses proceeded in court and on 21st March 2024 the District Judge handed down his judgment and at the conclusion of the hearing the court granted liability orders.
Permission was sought for judicial review, and refused by HHJ Klein on 22 October 2024.
Thursday 30 October 2025
Kaur & ors (appellants) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent) (external link)
Appeal against the order of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 31 July 2024 refusing permission to apply for judicial review.
The appellants are a family of Indian nationality who applied for leave to remain as a skilled worker after the main appellant’s human rights claim was refused, certified and she was placed under immigration bail. The decision to refuse her skilled worker application was made as she failed to meet the suitability requirements due to her immigration bail.
The Upper Tribunal found that the two grounds of appeal made were unarguable and that the decision made by the respondent was in the range of reasonable responses properly open to her.
Thursday 30 October 2025
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 13 March 2025, the Appellant (Defendant below) GIC Re, appeal the decision of Nigel Cooper KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 21 February 2025.
This appeal involves Tyson International Company Limited (TICL) and GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Limited, concerning a dispute over reinsurance agreements. The primary issue was the interpretation of jurisdiction and arbitration clauses within the Facultative Certificates and Market Reform Contracts (MRCs). TICL sought a final anti-suit injunction to prevent GIC Re from pursuing arbitration in New York, arguing that the English courts had jurisdiction based on the MRCs. The court had previously granted an interim anti-suit injunction, which was now made final.
Thursday 30 October 2025
Bali (claimant/appellant) v 1-2 Couriers & anr (defendants/respondents) (external link)
By appellant’s notice filed on 28 February 2025 and sealed by the Court of Appeal on 6 March 2025, the Claimant appeals with permission from DDJ Lenon KC, his order dated 7 January 2025, sitting in Central London County Court.
He dismissed the Claimant’s applications dated 16 April 2024 and 22 November 2024, one of which was for an extension of time for service of her claim form, and granted the Defendants’ application dated 17 June 2024 to strike out the claim on the ground that the claim form was not served in time, and declared that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim and the claim is struck out, and made a consequential costs order.
Thursday 30 October 2025
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 13 March 2025, the Appellant (Defendant below) VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company, appeal the decision of Mr Justice Picken, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 20 February 2025.
The underlying proceedings arise out of a dispute between the Respondent (“FWA”) and the Appellant (“VietJet”) concerning the financing structures for four Airbus A321 aircraft (the “Aircraft”). In March 2023, FWA obtained an interim injunction against VietJet which prohibited VietJet from “taking possession of or operating the Aircraft either directly or indirectly or otherwise interfering with the Claimant’s right to possession, custody and/or control of the Aircraft”. VietJet subsequently sent a number of letters to public authorities in Vietnam in relation to the Aircraft, and in particular the requirements for exporting them from Vietnam.
Court 4
- View the live stream from Court 4 on YouTube (external link)
Court 63
- View the live stream from Court 63 on YouTube (external link)
Court 67
- View the live stream from Court 67 on YouTube (external link)
Court 68
- View the live stream from Court 68 on YouTube (external link)
Court 69
- View the live stream from Court 69 on YouTube (external link)
Court 70
- View the live stream from Court 70 on YouTube (external link)
Court 71
- View the live stream from Court 71 on YouTube (external link)
Court 72
- View the live stream from Court 72 on YouTube (external link)
Court 73
- View the live stream from Court 73 on YouTube (external link)
Court 74
- View the live stream from Court 74 on YouTube (external link)
Court 75
- View the live stream from Court 75 on YouTube (external link)
Court 1 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 1 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link)
Court 17 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 17 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link)