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 case 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.
Friday 20 June 2025
LzLabs GmbH and others (defendants/appellants) v IBM UK Ltd (claimant/respondent) (external link)
The Defendants seek permission to appeal the order made by O’Farrell J, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court dated 10 March 25 and consequential judgment of 24 April25.
The judge granted the Claimant (IBM) relief in their claim for breach of contract against D2 (Winsopia) and in their claims for procurement and unlawful means conspiracy against D1 (LzLabs) and D3 (Mr Moores).
The judge granted wide injunctive relief against non-parties to the contract to restrain dealings in pure information for the benefit of itself and its parent IBM Corp.
IBM UK filed claims against US technology entrepreneur John Moores and two of his companies for breach of contract, procurement of breach and participating in an unlawful means conspiracy to develop a software product through the reverse-engineering of IBM’s software.
Tuesday 24 – Wednesday 25 June 2025
Yangtze Navigation (Asia) CO. Ltd & anr v TPT Shipping Ltd and ors (external link)
By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 November 2024, the Appellant appeals the order dated 18 September 2024 of Christopher Hancock KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge refused jurisdiction to try the Claimant’s claims, set aside paragraphs in two previous court orders and made cost orders against the Claimant.
The two Claimants are (1) Yangtze Navigation (Asia) Co. Limited and (2) Berge Bulk Shipping PTE Ltd. The Second Claimant is the Appellant. The five Defendants are (1) TPT Shipping Limited (2) TPT Forests Limited (3) Tuamata Plantations Limited (4) Tiaki Plantations Company (5) OTPP New Zealand Forest Investments Limited. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants are the Respondents.
The dispute relates to whether the Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants are principals to the two Letters of Indemnity they had with the Second Claimant and whether the English Court has jurisdiction to determine the Second Defendant’s claims that they are principals.
Tuesday 24 – Wednesday 25 June 2025
The Refugee & Migrant Forum of Essex & London & Adjei (respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (appellant) (external link)
Appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) against the order of Mr Justice Cavanagh, sitting in the Administrative Court, dated 26 June 2024 who ordered that the Judicial Review claims succeed and found that the SSHD’s failure to provide a digital document of 3C leave is unlawful because it is Wednesbury unreasonable and also breaches section 55 of the Borders and Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
The two conjoined applications for JR had the same grounds of appeal from RAMFEL (a charity who supports vulnerable migrants) and Ms Adjei (both are respondents in this appeal). The claims in brief, related to the adverse impact and unlawful discrimination a person with section 3C leave might have by an employer or landlord if undocumented.
The Judge found that the claimants succeeded and that grounds 2 and 4 were made out.
Tuesday 24 June 2025
White (appellant) v 29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Ltd (respondent) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 17 July 2024, this is an appeal against the decision of the Honourable Mr Justice Richards, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 19 June 2024.
The Appellant, Mr White, is the lessee of a flat on the second floor of a building. The Respondent (the “Landlord”) is the freehold owner of that building, which is divided into four flats. The question raised was whether the Landlord was entitled to take proceedings seeking forfeiture of Mr White’s lease, or whether that was precluded by the terms of a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Landlord and Mr White had compromised an earlier dispute between them. In a judgment given on 7 November 2023, HHJ Dight CBE concluded that the Settlement Agreement did preclude the Landlord from bringing forfeiture proceedings. The landlord appealed to the High Court against that conclusion.
Mr Justice Richards considered the construction of the relevant clauses, and concluded that the Landlord’s interpretation was the correct one, in a view contrary to that of the trial Judge, HHJ Dight CBE. The Landlord’s appeal was allowed.
Mr White now appeals that decision, on the basis that Mr Justice Richard’s interpretation was not correct.
Tuesday 24 – Wednesday 25 June 2025
By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 5 September 2024, Rights: Community: Action Limited, claimant below, appeals the decision of Lieven J sitting in Planning Court dated 2 July 2024 dismissing the claim for judicial review and making a cost order following an oral hearing on 18 & 19 June 2024.
The applicant, Rights: Community: Action Limited, is a non-governmental organisation incorporated as a limited company in January 2019 with social and environmental objectives, and is involved in community planning, particularly the formation of local development plans. The applicant made an application for judicial review of a Written Ministerial Statement (“WMS”) dated 13 December 2023 titled “Planning – Local Energy Efficiency Standards” (“the 2023 WMS”).
The 2023 WMS replaced an earlier 2015 WMS, that covered the same subject matter of the scope of local authorities’ powers to set standards for new buildings above the building regulations, in circumstances where the 2015 WMS had become outdated after 2021.
Tuesday 24 – Wednesday 25 June 2025
Hippodrome Casino Ltd (appellant) v HM Revenue and Customs (respondent) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 1 April 2024, the Appellant Hippodrome Casino Ltd (“HCL”) appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (“UT”), judgment being delivered on 29 January 2024.
The initial appeal concerned the method for the recovery of residual input tax during the period from 2012-13 to 2017-18 (inclusive) by the appellant, HCL, which makes taxable supplies of hospitality and entertainment and exempt gaming supplies from its premises.
The First Tier Tribunal concluded that HCL’s means of apportioning and recovering input VAT on HCL’s overhead expenditure by reference to floorspace more accurately reflected the economic use of that expenditure than the standard turnover-based method of recovery provided by the VAT Regulations and allowed HCL’s appeals.
The Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC’s appeal holding that the taxpayer’s partial exemption override based on floor space did not guarantee a more precise calculation of recoverable VAT than the standard method.
Tuesday 24 – Wednesday 25 June 2025
By two separate Appellants Notices filed, the CPS and the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, appeal against the order of Ritchie J dated 29 July 2024, sitting in the King’s Bench Division, allowing the Claimant’s appeal against the order of HHJ Brownhill striking out the claim against the CPS.
The issue is whether when an advocate speaks in court in the ordinary course of judicial proceeding they can be held liable for damages in a civil claim for the words they speak. The CPS submit they answer is no but that Ritchie J declined so to hold.
Wednesday 25 June 2025
By an Appellant Notice filed on 2 January 2025, the Appellant, appeals the Order, dated 13 December 2024 of HHJ Pelling, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which he allowed the Respondent’s appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act on a question of law arising out of an arbitration award.
Wednesday 25 – Thursday 26 June 2025
This is an appeal against the order of Michael Tappin KC (sitting as a Deputy High Ccourt Judge) dated 28 April 2025 that declared that the patent was at all material times invalid.
In the proceedings, the Claimants sought declarations that supplementary protection certificates were invalid and orders for their revocation, as well as a declaration that European Patent, which was the basic patent on which the SPCs were granted, was invalid.
The Patent was originally in the name of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. but was assigned to the Defendant in 2014. The Patent claimed a priority date of 20 May 2002 and expired on 14 May 2023. It claimed a compound known as dapagliflozin and its use in the manufacture of a medicament for, inter alia, treating diabetes.
Thursday 26 June 2025
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 9 June 2025, this is an application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow if permission is granted, the order of Swift J, sitting in the Administrative Court, dated 6 June 2025 by which he refused permission to bring a judicial review claim.
The applicant had sought permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to conduct a public consultation exercise which allows for a six week period for the public to respond to proposals by the EHRC to revise its code of practice following the judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16.
Thursday 26 June 2025
National House Building Council (appellant) v Peabody Trust (respondent) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 15 December 2024, the Defendant appeal against the order made by Andrew Mitchell KC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court), sitting in the Technology and Construction Court, refusing D’s application for summary judgment or strike out of the claim on basis that the claim was statute-barred.
The issue before the High Court was when time began to run. Option 1 of the D’s Buildmark Choice Policy provides cover for the additional costs of completing a housing development owing to the insolvency of the contractor before completion.
Court 4
- View the live stream from Court 4 on YouTube (external link)
Court 63
- View the live stream from Court 63 on YouTube (external link)
Court 67
- View the live stream from Court 67 on YouTube (external link)
Court 68
- View the live stream from Court 68 on YouTube (external link)
Court 69
- View the live stream from Court 69 on YouTube (external link)
Court 70
- View the live stream from Court 70 on YouTube (external link)
Court 71
- View the live stream from Court 71 on YouTube (external link)
Court 72
- View the live stream from Court 72 on YouTube (external link)
Court 73
- View the live stream from Court 73 on YouTube (external link)
Court 74
- View the live stream from Court 74 on YouTube (external link)
Court 75
- View the live stream from Court 75 on YouTube (external link)
Court 1 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 1 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link)
Court 17 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 17 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link)