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 19 – Wednesday 20 May 2026

HMRC (Appellant) v Bolt Services UK Ltd (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 24 June 2025 the Appellant HMRC, seek to appeal a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber), delivered on 24 March 2025.

Bolt Services UK Ltd runs a ride‑hailing platform, buying PHV services from self‑employed drivers and selling them to customers via its app.

In February 2023, HMRC determined that Bolt’s services did not fall within the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) for VAT purposes. Bolt appealed, and the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in its favour. HMRC then appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which upheld the FTT’s decision.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether Bolt’s services were of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents. It agreed with the FTT’s high‑level approach, holding that passenger transport is broadly the type of service supplied by tour operators.

The Tribunal also examined whether Bolt’s services were materially altered or constituted in‑house supplies. It rejected HMRC’s argument that the platform and licensing arrangements fundamentally changed the nature of the drivers’ services.

HMRC’s appeal was dismissed, with the Upper Tribunal finding no material error of law in the FTT’s reasoning.

Tuesday 19 – Wednesday 20 May 2026

Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anr (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice dated 24 December 2025 the Appellants appeal a High Court decision of 8 December 2025 dismissing its judicial review claim and awarding costs and seek an order limiting recoverable costs.

The case concerns a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to approve the expansion of London Luton Airport from 19 to 32 million passengers annually, contrary to the Examining Authority’s recommendation.

The claimant challenged the lawfulness of the environmental assessment and decision‑making, but the High Court rejected all grounds, finding the decision lawful.

Tuesday 19 May 2026

Spence (Respondent) v The Entry Clearance Officer (Appellant) (external link)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department appeals the Upper Tribunal’s decision of 12 February 2025, which dismissed its appeal from the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) allowing the Respondent’s appeal against refusal of entry clearance.

The Respondent had a 2008 US conviction for a sexual offence against a minor, resulting in imprisonment and deportation, and initially failed to disclose it in his 2023 application. The Entry Clearance Officer refused the application on suitability grounds.

The FTT allowed the appeal. The Upper Tribunal upheld that decision, finding no material error of law.

Tuesday 19 May 2026

City Outdoor Media Limited (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 8 August 2025 and sealed on 18 August 2025, the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, dated 18 July 2025 dismissing the claim on ground 1 and making a costs order.

Claim for statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, challenging the Inspector’s decision to dismiss the Claimant’s appeal against a Discontinuance Notice issued under the 2007 Advertisement Regulations in respect of signage on a car park in Manchester.

Tuesday 19 May 2026

(1) Pedregal Maritime S.A. (Appellant) v Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte. Ltd (Respondent) (external link)

(2) Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd (Appellant) v Pedregal Maritime SA (Respondent)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 4th November 2025 the Appellant, Pedregal Maritime S.A., appeals a decision of the High Court, delivered on 22 July 2025 with the consequent order made 27 October 2025.

This case involved two appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 arising from an award concerning alleged misdelivery of cargo carried on the Taikoo Brilliance. The holders of bills of lading claimed misdelivery after the cargo was discharged in India without production of the bills, while the owners argued the claim was time‑barred under the Hague‑Visby Rules.

The court considered whether Singapore proceedings to arrest a sister ship amounted to a “suit” interrupting the one‑year limitation period, and whether the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck. It held that proceedings for security alone do not constitute a “suit”, but that the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck

The owners succeeded on the limitation issue, while the holders succeeded on the interpretation of the bills of lading.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 7 November 2025, the Appellant, Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd, appeals the decision of the High Court, delivered on 22 July 2025, with the consequent order made on 27 October 2025.

This case involved two appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 arising from an award concerning alleged misdelivery of cargo carried on the Taikoo Brilliance. The holders of bills of lading claimed misdelivery after the cargo was discharged in India without production of the bills, while the owners argued the claim was time‑barred under the Hague‑Visby Rules.

The court considered whether Singapore proceedings to arrest a sister ship amounted to a “suit” interrupting the one‑year limitation period, and whether the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck. It held that proceedings for security alone do not constitute a “suit”, but that the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck

The owners succeeded on the limitation issue, while the holders succeeded on the interpretation of the bills of lading.

Wednesday 20 May 2026

Bridgen (Respondent/Claimant) v Hancock (Appellant/ Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 27 June 2025, the Appellant appeals the order of the High Court dated 14 April 2025 dismissing the application for summary judgment and making a costs order.

Former MP Andrew Bridgen brought a libel claim against former Health Secretary Matt Hancock over a tweet accusing him of promoting “antisemitic, anti‑vax, anti‑scientific conspiracy theories,” following Bridgen’s comparison of COVID‑19 vaccination to the Holocaust. Hancock’s application to strike out or obtain summary judgment was refused, with the court holding that issues of serious harm and whether the opinion was genuinely held required a full trial.

Wednesday 20 May 2026

J-B-M (Children) (external link)

The local authority appeals a decision of the Family Court dated 20 March 2026 making a Supervision Order in respect of three children. The judge discharged the Interim Care Orders and directed that the eldest child return home within two months, with the younger siblings following two months later.

Thursday 21 May 2026

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

The Appellant appeals against the Upper Tribunal’s (UT) decision of 28 October 2024 upholding the refusal of the Appellant’s asylum claim.

The Appellant, an Iranian national of Kurdish ethnicity, claimed risk based on attending protests in London. The First-Tier Tribunal found his activities insincere, that he had not come to the authorities’ attention, and could avoid risk; it also rejected his credibility. Although permission to appeal was granted on arguable errors, the UT held there was no material error of law, confirming that attendance alone did not establish risk and dismissing the appeal.

Thursday 21 May 2026

Khan (Appellant) v North of England Coachworks Limited (Respondent) (external link)

On 31 March 2026, the High Court committed the Appellant to six months’ immediate imprisonment for deliberate breach of freezing orders by pawning a Rolex watch and ordered costs of £14,000.

The Appellant admitted breach, gave oral evidence, and accepted liability for the Respondent’s costs. The hearing addressed only sanction, not liability.

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)