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.

The Court would welcome your feedback on the pilot scheme. If you wish to share any, please complete this feedback form.

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

Monday 15 June 2026

Ammori (Claimant/Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

This live stream is for the Judgment of the appeal heard on 28and 29 April 2026.

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 March 2026 and sealed on 13 March 2026 the Appellant appealed a decision of the High Court, dated 13 February 2026.

The Claimant was co‑founder of Palestine Action, and sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision of 20 June 2025 to proscribe Palestine Action under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The High Court allowed the Claimant’s claim for judicial review and quashed the Defendant’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

Lower Court Judgment

Appellant’s Skeleton Argument

Appellant’s Supplementary Skeleton Argument

Respondent’s Skeleton Argument

Respondent’s Reply to Supplementary Skeleton Argument

Monday 15 June 2026

Carl v Hawkins & Ors (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 May the 9th Defendant appeals paragraph 11 of an order dated 7 May 2025, (amended on 19 September 2025) disallowing his costs.

The dispute involved ownership of a vintage motorcar and the alleged misappropriation of eight cars by 13 defendants. Although the 9th Defendant avoided liability in the main action, the Judge denied him costs due to deliberate non-disclosure and non-cooperation. At the consequentials hearing, the 9th Defendant sought costs against the Claimant for failing to follow the pre-action protocol. However, the Judge held that proceeding without one was reasonable and proportionate.

Tuesday 16 June 2026

TDB by his Litigation Friend NP (Appellant/Claimant) v London Borough of Haringey (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision in a Care Act Assessment in December 2024 on the basis it was unlawful due to the absence of a capacity assessment.

HHJ Bird dismissed the application for judicial review and granted anonymity to the Claimant. On 5 September 2025 HHJ Bird refused permission to appeal in a substantive judicial review hearing.

Tuesday 16 June 2026

(1) J’s Supermarket Ltd (Appellant/Claimant) v SSHD (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

(2) Prestige Social Care Services Ltd (Appellant/Claimant) v SSHD (Respondent/Defendant)

(1) Issue: revocation of sponsor licence upheld

The revocation was based on findings that two sponsored roles were not genuine and that J’s Supermarket Ltd had committed multiple breaches of sponsor duties.

The judge held that there was a clear mismatch between the roles described and duties performed. Complaints about missing job descriptions and a misunderstanding about recruitment interviews were accepted as errors but not material, while the absence of pension opt‑out evidence supported a broader pattern of non‑compliance.

(2) This judicial review challenges the Home Office’s revocation of the claimant’s sponsorship licence on 15 October 2024.

Although the Court found one finding of “non‑genuine vacancies” to be irrational, it upheld the revocation due to wider systemic breaches of sponsor duties. The Court refused relief on the basis the outcome would have been the same, dismissed the claim, refused permission to appeal, and awarded costs to the Home Office subject to a 15% reduction.

Tuesday 16 – Wednesday 17 June 2026

(1) St Patrick’s International College Ltd & Interactive Manchester Ltd v HMRC (external link)

(2) London College of Contemporary Arts Ltd v HMRC

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025 and issued on 9 June 2025 the Appellant, HMRC, appeals a decision the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (UT) delivered on 24 March 2025.

Issue: Whether the appellants’ educational services qualified for VAT exemption.

The UT found that the UK lawfully limited the exemption to specified bodies (e.g. universities). Indirect funding via student loans did not qualify. There was no direct obligation on the Secretary of State to pay fees. One of the providers was recognised for teaching English as a foreign language, so those courses could be VAT‑free.

The appeals were dismissed. The UK regime was lawful, student loans do not constitute direct state funding, and VAT exemptions only apply in limited situations.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025, the Appellants, London College of Contemporary Arts Limited, appeal a decision the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (UT) delivered on 24 March 2025.

Issue: Whether the Appellants’ courses should be exempt from VAT under UK and EU law.

The court held that the VAT rules were applied correctly, student loans don’t count as government funding, and exemptions only apply in limited cases.

Lower Court Judgment

Appellant’s Skeleton Argument

Respondents’ Skeleton Argument

Tuesday 16 – Wednesday 17 June 2026

Butcher (Appellant) v The Estate of Euan McIntyre Lindsay (deceased) and others (Respondents) (external link)

The 26 November 2025 High Court judgment concerns the Respondents’ claim to set aside a 2014 High Court judgment, said to have been procured by fraud committed by Outlook Finance Ltd’s director.

The judge found that Outlook Finance Ltd’s director had engaged in a sustained fraud, including fabricating documents, falsifying records, and misleading the family, with Scottish proceedings confirming. Fresh evidence, including forensic accounting material, showed the Manchester court had been misled.

Although the Appellant was not dishonest, the fraud so tainted the original judgment that it was set aside against both him and Outlook, with a retrial ordered. In the consequential judgment, the court confirmed this outcome, awarded the claimants costs.

Wednesday 17 – Thursday 18 June 2026

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

(2) Hirtie (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)

(1) The Home Secretary (SSHD) appeals a decision allowing the Respondent’s appeal against deportation on human rights grounds.

The Respondent came to the UK as a child and stayed with limited leave. He has a history of serious drug and weapon offences. A deportation decision was made in 2019 and upheld after further offending.

The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) allowed the Respondent’s appeal, finding “very compelling circumstances” against deportation. The Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld this decision.

(2) The Home Secretary appeals a decision allowing the Respondent’s human rights challenge against deportation.

The Respondent has limited leave under the EU Settlement Scheme, has a partner and two young children in the UK. He has criminal convictions, including a 39‑month sentence for grievous bodily harm, leading to a deportation order.

The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) allowed the Respondent’s appeal, finding “very compelling circumstances” under Article 8 (family life). The Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld this.

Wednesday 17 – Thursday 18 June 2026

Lloyd’s Insurance Company S.A (Appellant/Defendant) v Oceanus Capital SARL (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 January 2026 the Appellant, Lloyd’s Insurance Company S.A., appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 17 December 2025.

This appeal concerns a claim by Oceanus Capital SARL, as mortgagee of the vessel M/V Vyssos, against Lloyd’s Insurance Company S.A. under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance policy (“MII Policy”), following a constructive total loss caused when the vessel, owned by Lyra Mare Ltd, entered Ukrainian waters in December 2023 and struck a naval mine.

Although Oceanus had been provided with a purported extension of cover, this was later revealed to be a forgery, and the underlying War Risks Policy declined liability for breach of trading warranties, leading Oceanus to claim USD 3.6 million under the MII Policy, which Lloyd’s resisted.

The Court held that the proximate cause of loss was the mine damage and consequent non‑payment under the War Risks Policy, not the forged document (which created no contract), that Oceanus lacked the requisite “privity”. Oceanus was entitled to recover the agreed indemnity together with interest and costs, and permission to appeal was granted.

Lower Court Judgment

Appellant’s Skeleton Argument

Appellant’s Supplementary Skeleton Argument

Respondent’s Skeleton Argument

Wednesday 17 June 2026

Re HB (external link)

This appeal concerns an individual with autism, ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, and more recently epilepsy, requiring significant support including 1:1 daytime care, waking night supervision, and 2:1 support during heightened behaviour.

The High Court refused the parents’ application to be appointed as his personal welfare deputies. The judge held that collaborative decision‑making had worked well, that major disputes should instead be resolved by the Court of Protection, and that appointing deputies would unnecessarily restrict the individual’s autonomy as an adult.

Wednesday 17 June 2026

Ward (Respondent) v Rai (Appellant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 24 July 2025 the Appellant appeals an order from the High Court dated 03 July 2025 allowing the Respondent’s appeal against the decision of a Deputy Costs Judge dated 8 November 2024.

The High Court set aside the earlier order, allowing the Respondent’s appeal on the basis that the late service caused unnecessary delay and costs, even though the specific grounds of appeal were rejected.

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)