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 15 April 2026

Lish (Appellant/Claimant) v The Northern Block Limited & Anr (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 14 November 2025, the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 22 August 2025.

The Appellant created typefaces for Northern Block. After terminating the arrangement in 2022, she alleged Northern Block continued exploiting her work without proper payment. A 2023 County Court action recognised her rights in certain typefaces.

In 2024 she issued new claims for unpaid royalties, breach of the 2023 settlement, and ongoing infringement.

The judge refused summary judgment. Only a limited claim remains, likely worth under £10,000, and suitable for the IPEC Small Claims Track.

Lower Court Judgment

Appellant’s Skeleton Argument 1

Appellant’s Skeleton Argument 2

Respondents’ Skeleton Argument

Wednesday 15 April 2026

Kaur (Applicant/Defendant) v Singh Gill & Anr (Respondents/Claimants) (external link)

The applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal the High Court committal order made on 14 August 2025, which sentenced her to 18 months’ imprisonment.

The Applicant argues, provisionally, that the committal order is unsafe because the Judge proceeded to find contempt and impose a prison sentence when she was outside the jurisdiction and had no actual knowledge of the proceedings.

Wednesday 15 April 2026

(1) Muca (Appellant/Defendant) v El Amrani (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

(2) Harker & Ors (Applicants) v Hughes & Anr

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 02 January 2026, the Appellant appeals a Romford County Court order.

A possession order required the tenant to give up the property by 22 January 2026. The key issue is whether a landlord who failed to give the tenant the last gas safety record from before the tenancy began can still use section 21 Housing Act 1988.

The order from the County Court allowed the landlord’s appeal and set aside the order of a District Judge, which had dismissed the claim. The landlord was granted outright possession of the property.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 24 February 2026, the Applicants apply for permission to appeal a Central London County Court order.

The issue concerns the interaction between 21 Housing Act 1988, the 2015 Assured Shorthold Tenancy Regulations, and the 1998 Gas Safety Regulations, the statutory scheme governing when a landlord may recover possession under section 21.

A District Judge granted possession in February 2025. On appeal, the County Court reversed that decision, holding that failure to supply last gas safety record before the tenant occupied the property bars reliance on section 21 Housing Act 1988.

Wednesday 15 April 2026

Titan Asset Management Ltd (Appellant) v Tavistock Investments PLC & Ors (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 31 December 2025, the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 11 December 2025.

This is a dispute between Titan Wealth (Titan Wealth Services Ltd and Titan Asset Management Ltd) and Tavistock Investments Plc arising from Titan’s 2021 acquisition of Titan AM and their subsequent Outsourced Management Agreement (OMA).

Titan alleges breaches of the Share Purchase Agreement and OMA, bad‑faith conduct, orchestrated redemptions aimed at damaging the funds, and an unlawful means conspiracy. Tavistock denies this and counterclaims that Titan mismanaged the funds, diverted a corporate acquisition opportunity, and misused confidential information and copyrighted materials.

The Court held the jurisdiction challenge was “totally without merit” and indemnity costs were awarded.

Lower Court Judgment

Respondents’ Skeleton Argument

Thursday 16 April 2026

Culligan (Appellant) v Rosemin-Culligan (Respondent) (external link)

By an appellant’s notice filed on 4 February 2025 the Appellant appeals the final financial remedies decision of High Court, Family Division, judgment is dated 14 January 2025.

The parties agreed that the matrimonial assets should be divided on a broadly equal basis. The High Court ordered a broadly equal distribution of capital, with the wife retaining a greater share of the real property and the husband retaining a greater share of his corporate assets.

The Appellant contends that the practical effect was a materially unequal outcome.

Thursday 16 April 2026

Pryor (Respondent/Claimant) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 17 February 2026 the Appellant to appeals paragraph 1 of an order of High Court on 13 February 2026.

The Claimant is a firearms officer with the Metropolitan Police Service who sustained a serious ankle injury during a training exercise on 19 May 202.

This is a challenge to an interlocutory, refusing the Defendant’s application to extend time for service of witness statements.

Thursday 16 April 2026

Jakir Ahmed (Appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

Application for permission to appeal determination of Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) promulgated on 19th February 2025 dismissing the Appellant’s appeal from the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) which had dismissed his human rights appeal finding no error of law.

The Appellant entered the UK in 2005 with a valid work permit until October 2006 and thereafter overstayed. He applied for leave to remain as the parent of a British child born in 2020. He had not lived with the child nor had any direct contact since August 2021.

The FTT dismissed the appeal, finding that the Family Court proceedings were brought to delay or frustrate removal.

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)