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.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is currently operating a pilot scheme to allow access to the parties’ skeleton arguments, on a limited number of selected cases that are being live streamed.  Please note that the only documents available are those attached on this page. Although you are welcome to view these documents, the re-use, re-editing or redistribution of these documents is not permitted.  You should be aware that any such use could attract liability for breach of copyright or defamation. Authorisation to reproduce material from these documents must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

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

Wednesday 05 – Thursday 06 May 2026

(1) The Winros Partnership (Appellants) v Global Energy Horizons Corporation (Respondents)

(2) The Winros Partnership (Appellants) v Global Energy Horizons Corporation (Respondents)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 22 August 2025, the Appellants below, the Winros Partnership (formerly known as Rosenblatt Solicitors) appeal paragraphs 1 and 2 of an order from the High Court. In paragraph 1 of the Order, the Judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on the issue of abuse of process. In paragraph 2 of the Order, the Judge reserved the costs of the appeal.

Global Energy retained Rosenblatt Solicitors under three Conditional Fee Agreements to pursue a claim for misappropriation of technology. Although Global Energy succeeded on liability, its limited financial recovery led to disputes over legal fees.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 23 January 2026, the Appellant, the Winros Partnership (formerly known as Rosenblatt Solicitors), appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 19 December 2025 following trial.

This was the second limb of an appeal in long‑running Solicitors Act proceedings between Rosenblatt (The Winros Partnership) and its former client, Global Energy Horizons Corporation. The key issue was whether a solicitor who accepts a client’s repudiatory breach of a Conditional Fee Agreement can recover fees for work done before termination.

Wednesday 05 – Thursday 06 May 2026

North Warwickshire Borough Council (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anr (Respondent/Defendant)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 11 June 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court dated 20 May 2025, dismissing the claim for judicial review and making a costs order.

The Appellant sought judicial review of the joint decision dated 14 May 2024 of the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, made following an Inspector’s Report.

The proposed development comprised the Water Orton Cutting, including the Bromford Tunnel East Portal (BTEP), the Attleboro Lane overbridge, and associated works. The Inspector dismissed the appeal in respect of approval of details for the BTEP, but allowed it in relation to the Water Orton Cutting (excluding tunnel‑related works) and the Attleboro Lane overbridge. The Respondents nevertheless allowed the appeal in full, treating it as covering both the Bromford Tunnel Extension (BTE) and the BTEP.

Wednesday 05 May 2026

AA (Respondent/Claimant) v London Borough of Waltham Forest (Appellant/Defendant)

The claimant brought a judicial review challenging the Housing Needs Assessment and Personal Housing Plan prepared by Waltham Forest Council for the claimant in August 2024. The High Court allowed the claim, holding that the Council had acted unreasonably by failing to include steps to support the claimant’s application for social housing, and ordered the Council to issue a fresh Personal Housing Plan.

Wednesday 05 May 2026

Manaquel Co Ltd (Appellant) v London Borough of Lambeth (Respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 30 May 2025 and issued on 2 June 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal, delivered on 25 March 2025.

Lambeth served an improvement notice in 2021 requiring extensive works at Dorchester Court. Manaquel successfully appealed, and the notice was quashed in 2023. Manaquel then sought costs of about £145,000, alleging unreasonable conduct by Lambeth. Although the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) described Lambeth’s conduct as “incompetent,” it found it was not “unreasonable”.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal held that the FTT had applied the wrong legal test by focusing on the property’s condition at the hearing rather than when the notice was issued. The Upper Tribunal concluded that it remained fair and just to refuse costs and dismissed the appeal.

Wednesday 05 – Thursday 06 May 2026

(1) Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Appellant/Claimant) v 2Rivers Pte Ltd (Respondent/Defendant)

(2) Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly named Tonzip Maritime Ltd) (Appellant/Claimant) v 2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly named Coral Energy Pte Ltd) (Respondent/Defendant)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 4 September 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, delivered on 31 July 2025 following trial.

Tonzip Maritime Ltd chartered the Catalan Sea to 2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly Coral Energy) to carry oil from Russia to Turkey under a charterparty containing an EPS Sanctions Clause. The cargo supplier was allegedly linked to a UK‑ and EU‑sanctioned individual. Relying on perceived sanctions risk, Tonzip refused to load the cargo. 2Rivers cancelled the charter; Tonzip treated this as repudiation.

The dispute turned on whether Tonzip was entitled to refuse loading under the sanctions clause, including whether there was a real sanctions risk and whether Tonzip’s judgment was objectively reasonable. The court held that although the clause allowed refusal based on reasonable judgment, Tonzip’s decision was not objectively reasonable.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 14 October 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, delivered on 31 July 2025 and the order being made on 23 September 2025.

Tonzip Maritime Ltd chartered the Catalan Sea to 2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly Coral Energy) to carry oil from Russia to Turkey under a charterparty containing an EPS Sanctions Clause. The cargo supplier was allegedly linked to a UK‑ and EU‑sanctioned individual. Relying on perceived sanctions risk, Tonzip refused to load the cargo. 2Rivers cancelled the charter; Tonzip treated this as repudiation.

The dispute turned on whether Tonzip was entitled to refuse loading under the sanctions clause, including whether there was a real sanctions risk and whether Tonzip’s judgment was objectively reasonable. The court held that although the clause allowed refusal based on reasonable judgment, Tonzip’s decision was not objectively reasonable.

Thursday 06 May 2026

Jimoh (Respondent/Claimant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Defendant)

The applicant, a Nigerian national resident in the UK since childhood, suffers from serious long‑term medical conditions requiring lifelong treatment. Although granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in 2001, his status was invalidated after a 2006 drugs conviction and a deportation order, later revoked. He was then granted successive periods of Discretionary Leave (DL) for over 14 years. In 2023, he applied for ILR under the transitional DL policy, but the Secretary of State refused the application three times, relying on the historic conviction.

The High Court held that the transitional DL and Medical Claims policies created a strong presumption of settlement once the qualifying period was met. Reliance on the 2006 conviction was unlawful and undermined the policies’ purpose. The Secretary of State also failed properly to consider the applicant’s medical vulnerability and his child’s best interests. The decision was quashed and, given the inevitable outcome, the court ordered that ILR be granted rather than remitting the matter.

Thursday 06 May 2026

M (A Child)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 March 2026, the Appellant appeals a decision of the Family Court, dated 21 November 2025.

This case concerns a child who was placed in foster care at birth and later placed for adoption. At the time of the adoption assessment and order, the adoptive parents’ relationship had broken down. This separation was not disclosed to the court.

Concerns emerged that the adoptive mother was in a relationship with a serving prisoner who anticipated living with her and the child on release.

The appeal alleges serious procedural irregularity and material non‑disclosure, arguing that the adoption order was made on a mistaken factual basis and incomplete evidence, such that the court could not properly or rationally have concluded that adoption was in the child’s best interests had the true circumstances been known.

Thursday 06 May 2026

Coelho v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Applicant)

The application concerns an extradition dispute involving competing requests from the USA and Portugal. The Home Secretary chose to delay the Portuguese request until US proceedings concluded. The High Court allowed the judicial review. The key issue on appeal is whether the case is a “criminal cause or matter,” determining the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction.

Friday 08 May 2026

Park Cakes Ltd (Respondents/Claimants) v Caterpillar Property Ltd & Anr (Appellants/Defendants)

By appellant’s notice filed on 10 April 2026, the Appellants/Defendants, appeal a decision from County Court at Leeds, Business & Property Work, dated 24 March 2026.

In June 2025, Park Cakes issued a claim seeking declarations that the renewal options were not agreements within section 28 and that it could seek a new lease under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Act. The Defendants argued that the options were agreements for the grant of a future tenancy and thus wholly disapplied Part II.

Following a trial on 19 February 2026, the judge held that the renewal options were not agreements within section 28.

Friday 08 May 2026

Wyatt (Respondent) v Mavin (Appellant)

By appellant’s notice filed on 28 July 2025, the Appellant appeals two order of the Oxford County Court, dated 16 April 2025 and 25 June 2025. The  order dated 16 April 2025 found the Appellant guilty of contempt. He also appeals her order dated 25 June 2025 said to sentence him to 9 months imprisonment.

The case concerns committal proceedings arising from repeated attempts to obstruct enforcement of a possession order. The judge found the Appellant guilty of seven counts of contempt of court, all proved to the criminal standard.

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)