Court of Appeal Civil Division live hearings
-
October 23, 2025
Bailey (appellant) v Stonewall Equality Ltd & ors (respondents)
Tuesday 21 – Wednesday 22 October 2025 By Appellant’s Notice filed on 29 August 2024, the Claimant (C) appeals against the order made by Bourne J, sitting in the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), sealed on 24 July 2024 dismissing her appeal from a decision made by the Employment Tribunal (ET). The C, a barrister, was […]
-
October 23, 2025
MS Amlin Marine NV (respondent) v King Trader Ltd & ors (appellants)
Tuesday 21 October 2025 By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 20 September 2024, the Appellants appeal the Order dated 30 July 2024 of Mr Justice Foxton sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge held there was a “pay first” or “pay to be paid” clause and made a […]
-
October 23, 2025
Ammori (claimant/respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (defendant/appellant)
Friday 17 October 2025 Summary of Judgment being handed down at same date further to the appeal hearing heard on the 25 September 2025. By Appellant’s Notice filed on the 8 August 2025 the Secretary of State for the Home Department appeals the decision of Mr Justice Chamberlain, sitting in the Administrative Court, dated 6 […]
-
October 17, 2025
Khera (respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (appellant)
Wednesday 15 October 2025 The Secretary of State appeals the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber promulgated on 10th July 2024 allowing the appeal of the original appellant, Khera.He is a national of India seeking to join his wife and son who are British nationals in the UK. He applied for entry […]
-
October 17, 2025
Hippolyte (claimant/appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (defendant/respondent)
Wednesday 15 October 2025 This is an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Sheldon dated 20 November dismissing the claim for judicial review after a substantive hearing. The appellant challenges the decision of the respondent refusing to grant her indefinite leave to remain under the Windrush Scheme. The applicant did not satisfy one of […]
-
October 17, 2025
Iceland Foods Ltd (appellant) v Babek International Ltd (respondent)
Wednesday 15 October 2025 By Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 April 2025 the defendant below, Iceland Foods Limited, appeal the decision of HHJ Hacon, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 11 March 2025. The appeal relates to HHJ Hacon’s decision in which Babek International Limited (“Babek”) was the successful […]
-
October 17, 2025
Re: H (children)
Tuesday 14 October 2025 By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 23 July 2025, this is an appeal against the decision of HHJ Shanks, sitting in the Family Court, dated 24 June 2025. The appellant father to the subject child, appeals the Final Care Orders made in respect of two of the three subject children. View […]
-
October 17, 2025
(1) Rice (appellant) v Wicked Vision Ltd (respondent) (2) Barton Turns Developments Ltd (appellant) v Treadwell (respondent)
Tuesday 14 – Wednesday 15 October 2025 (1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 23 February 2024, the Claimant (C) appeals against the order made by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), Bourne J, sealed on 13 March 2024 allowing the appeal by Wicked Vision Ltd. Bourne J overturned the decision of the Employment Tribunal, which allowed […]
-
October 17, 2025
Afan Valley Ltd (in Administration) & ors (appellants) v Lupton Fawcett LLP (respondent)
Tuesday 14 – Wednesday 15 October 2025 The Claimants (C’s) appeal against the decision made by Sheldon J when handing down judgment on 23 April 2024 striking out/ granting summary judgment dismissing C’s claims against the 2nd Defendant, Lupton Fawcett LLP. The C’s are 43 companies which were the vehicles for a large Ponzi fraud […]
-
October 17, 2025
RR (claimant/appellant) v The London Borough of Enfield (defendant/respondent)
Tuesday 14 October 2025 The Appellant brought a judicial review challenge to Enfield’s scheme for allocation of social housing, arguing that it was unlawful both on a public law basis but also, more specifically as it was said to be contrary to anti-discrimination legislation. Deputy High Court Judge Walden-Smith dismissed the claim finding that the […]