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. 

Wednesday 29 – Thursday 30 October 2025

Sahara Energy Resource Ltd & anr (claimants/appellants) v Société Nationale De Raffinage S.A. (defendant/respondent) (external link)

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.

Tuesday 4 November 2025

Baparee (appellant) 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 9 October 2024 refusing permission to apply for judicial review.

The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who applied on 31 August 2021 for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the dependent of a representative of an overseas business. That application was originally refused on 29 March 2022 and that decision was maintained on 12 April of that year. However, an application for administrative review was successful and the original refusal was reconsidered. The application was refused again on 3 January 2023. That is the decision now sought to be challenge in these proceedings.

Tuesday 4 – Wednesday 5 November 2025

IA & Others (respondents) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (appellant) (external link)

Appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UTIAC) promulgated on 13th January 2025 setting aside the determination of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) which had refused entry clearance to IA and others (the respondents).

The respondents are a Palestinian family living in Gaza who sought entry outside the Rules. They are a husband, wife and 4 children of whom 3 were minors at the time of the application. The application was erroneously made on the form for the Ukraine Family Scheme although it is accepted that they did not fall within that scheme. The application was made to join the sponsor who was R1’s brother who had lived in the UK since 2007. It was made because their home was destroyed by an airstrike following the attacks on Israel in October 2023.

The Entry Clearance Officer held that the Ukraine Family Scheme did not apply and there were no compelling compassionate circumstances justifying a grant of leave outside the Immigration Rules. It was further noted that there was no resettlement scheme for Palestinians wishing to come to the UK. The Entry Clearance Officer concluded that refusing the application would not be disproportionate; and that there had been no human rights claim and there was no right of appeal.

The FTT dismissed the appeal of the (now) respondents finding that the family life they shared with the sponsor fell short of dependency and refusal of entry was proportionate. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the FTT was correct to hold that family life had existed from 7th October 2023 when the sponsor had provided support but that interference in same was disproportionate for the purposes of Article 8 ECHR.

Tuesday 4 November 2025

Cifci (claimant/appellant) v London Borough of Sutton (defendant/respondent) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 17 December 2024, (the appellant below appeals the order dated 2 December 2024 of HHJ Holmes sitting in the County Court at Central London; and his judgment of the same date.

The Judge dismissed his appeal against the respondent local authority’s review decision dated 18 April 2024, by which the respondent determined that he was homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need, but that he was intentionally homeless.

Wednesday 5 – Thursday 6 November 2025

 (LXR) v The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and another (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 19 November 2024, the Criminal Injures Compensation Authority (CICA), respondent below, appeal the decision of Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dated 16 July 2024 quashing the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 9 May 2023.

The issue relates to CICA’s power to re-open an application for a material change in medical condition under paragraphs 114-116 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012; specifically whether the Scheme permits a previously accepted award to be re-opened where an applicant seeks to rely on new medical evidence attributing their medical condition to a relevant crime of violence, when the medical evidence previously relied upon did not do so.

Wednesday 5 November 2025

Cameron (appellant) v Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust & anr (respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 23 January 2025, the appellant below, appeals the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dated 19 September 2024 dismissing the appeal and finding that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Issue involves a question of statutory construction regarding the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to determine a mental health patient’s application for liberty.

Wednesday 5 November 2025

A D Bly Groundworks & Civil Engineering Ltd (appellants) & anr v HM Revenue & Customs (respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 19 June 2024 the Appellants (also Appellants below) A D Bly Groundworks and Civil Engineering Ltd and CHR Travel Ltd, appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), judgment being delivered on 22 April 2024 following trial on 6 December 2023.

A D Bly is a provider of civil engineering and groundwork contracting services. At the relevant times, it had seven directors and around 220 employees. CHR is engaged in the wholesale travel agency business. It had two directors and around 20 employees. The Appellants entered into contractual arrangements with directors and other key employees relating to an Unfunded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Scheme under which the Appellants promised to provide those employees with a pension in the future. In the case of each Appellant, the pensions were calculated by reference to the estimated profits for the relevant year. In each case, the aggregate amount of the pensions was set at 80% or 100% of the estimated profits before tax. Each company made a provision in its accounts in respect of its liability to make these future pension payments to employees, and claimed a deduction in calculating its profits for corporation tax purposes to reflect that provision. HMRC disallowed the deductions and issued closure notices.

Wednesday 5 – Thursday 6 November 2025

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & ors (appellants) v Dexcom Incorporated & ors (respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 10 February 2025, the Appellant (Claimant below) Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and subsidiaries, appeal the decision of Mr Justice Mellor, sitting as a Judge of the High Court in the Intellectual Property List, judgment being delivered on 15 January 2025 following trial.

This is a patent case relating to continuous glucose monitoring technology, which now plays an important role in the management of type 1 diabetes. Abbott and Dexcom are the main players in this valuable market and are engaged in an ongoing patent dispute in which numerous patents are asserted by each side against the other in several jurisdictions.

Thursday 6 November 2025

Ayoola (appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)

Appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UTIAC) promulgated on 18 March 2024.

In a decision dated 10 May 2021 the SSHD refused the Appellant’s application under the EUSS as a “person with a Zambrano right to reside”.

The appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision was originally heard and allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Colvin by a decision dated 9 March 2022. The SSHD appealed. By a decision promulgated on 7 December 2022, the Upper Tribunal Judge allowed the SSHD’s appeal, on the basis that the judge had failed to provide reasons for allowing the appeal, and erred in relation to the law applicable to Zambrano rights of residence. The panel set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, and gave directions for the decision to be remade in the Upper Tribunal.

The matter was then heard by the Upper Tribunal who remade the decision and dismissed the appeal finding they did not have jurisdiction as the Article 24 (2) matter was a new matter for which the SSHD did not consent to being considered by the UT.

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)