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. 

Tuesday 21 – Wednesday 22 April 2026

The Ramblers’ Association (Appellant/Claimant) v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice dated 1 April 2025, Roxlena Limited (the First Interested Party) appeals a decision of the High Court dated 11 March 2025. The judge allowed a judicial review, quashed an Inspector’s decision of 10 April 2024 refusing to confirm a Definitive Map Modification Order.

The Inspector had refused to confirm the Cumbria County Council (Parish of Hayton) Definitive Map Modification Order, made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which would have added footpaths and a bridleway in Hayton Woods, Cumbria.

The Claimant charity challenged the refusal insofar as it related to the footpaths The Defendant conceded the claim, but Roxlena Ltd, owner of most of the affected land and a statutory objector, continues to contest the proceedings.

Tuesday 21 April 2026

Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd and others (Appellants/Claimants) v Lifestyle Equities CV and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 15 July 2025 the appellants appeal a decision of the Judge of the High Court delivered on 9 June 2025.

The dispute concerned trade mark infringement and inducement to breach contract relating to the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand. Liability was determined in 2018, and the proceedings are now at the damages stage.

The claimants seek to recover their own losses and losses allegedly suffered by licensees and sub‑licensees under the Trade Marks Act 1994.

The court held that proprietors or exclusive licensees may claim for losses suffered by licensees even where the licence is unregistered. SportsDirect’s application for summary judgment was dismissed.

Wednesday 22 – Thursday 23 April 2026

(1) Patrick Giltinane and others v Startline Motor Finance Ltd (external link)

(2) Sharif & Others v MotoNovo Finance Limited

(3) Hallsor & Others v Aldermore Bank PLC

(4) Thomas And Others v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited

(5) Bateson & Others v BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited

(6) Angel And Others v Black Horse Limited

(7) Barlow & Others v Vauxhall Finance Plc and another

(8) Green and Others v Close Brothers Limited

(1-8) Each Appellant is a defendant to claims brought by multiple purchasers of motor vehicles. The claims allege that the lender providing purchase finance failed to disclose commission arrangements with the motor dealer, giving rise to liability the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the basis of an unfair relationship.

The procedural issue is whether it is “convenient” under Civil Procedure Rules for such claims to be brought by a single claim form. HHJ Worster held that it was not. Ritchie J disagreed, finding that the high threshold for appellate intervention in case management decisions was met. That divergence raises an issue of wider importance.

Wednesday 22 – Thursday 23 April 2026

Acer Incorporated and others (Respondents/Claimants) v Nokia Technologies OY (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 February 2026 Appellant ppeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 18 December 2025 and a consequential judgment on 30 January 2026.

This judgment concerns three implementer‑led actions by Acer, Hisense and ASUS against Nokia seeking declarations that the English court has jurisdiction to determine global RAND terms for Nokia’s video‑codec SEPs and interim RAND licence declarations.

The claimants manufacture H.264 and H.265‑compliant devices and undertook to take global RAND licences on court‑determined terms. Nokia challenged jurisdiction and opposed interim relief.

The principal issues were the legal effect under Swiss law of Nokia’s ITU‑T RAND declarations; whether the claims satisfied jurisdictional gateways (in particular Gateway 11); whether England was the appropriate forum; whether interim licence declarations should be granted; and whether there had been any material non‑disclosure on service out.

The Court held that Nokia’s ITU‑T declarations created binding contractual obligations—encumbering the patent rights—to make RAND offers capable of acceptance and to grant RAND licences.

The Court further held that Nokia had not behaved as a willing licensor and that interim licence declarations served a useful purpose in mitigating commercial harm caused by Nokia’s global enforcement campaign.

Wednesday 22 April 2026

Aljeriwy (Appellant) v Root Luxury Cars Ltd and another (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 13 September 2024 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 22 August 2024 following trial.

This is an appeal against an order which set aside an ex parte freezing order, and summarily awarded costs of £10,000 against the Appellant.

The Deputy Judge held that the ex parte order should be discharged because of material non‑disclosure. He further found that there was insufficient evidence of a risk of dissipation and that, in all the circumstances, the ex parte order was unfair to the Respondents.

Wednesday 22 – Thursday 23 April 2026

(1) Redevco Properties UK 1 Ltd (Appellant) v The Commissioners for HMRC (Respondent) (external link)

(2) The Trustees of the Panico Panayi Accumulation and Maintenance Settlements Nos. 1 to 4 (Appellant) v The Commissioners for HMRC (Respondent)

(1 and 2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 10 February 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal delivered on 8 October 2024.

These joined appeals concern the compatibility of the UK legislation on company and trustee migrations with EU law and whether the UK legislation requiring immediate payment of corporation tax can be subject to a deferred payment of the charges.

Dismissing the taxpayers’ appeals, the Upper Tribunal has held that, where a taxpayer’s right of freedom of establishment would otherwise be infringed, it includes an option to defer payment of the exit tax in five equal annual instalments.

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)