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. 

Tuesday 14  – Wednesday 15 July 2026

(1) Morrell (Appellant) v Morgan (Respondent) (external link)

(2) Antoniou (Appellant) v Morgan (Respondent)

Issue: Where there was a dearth of authority concerning, first, the interrelationship between a court order for child maintenance made pursuant to a written agreement under the Child Support Act 1991 and a subsequent child maintenance calculation made by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). Secondly, the interrelationship between a “top-up” child maintenance order, where the CMS has made a maximum assessment. The central question in each case was how the court’s jurisdiction to make and maintain such orders operates alongside the statutory child support scheme administered by the CMS.

Tuesday 14 July 2026

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

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) appeals the Upper Tribunal’s decision, promulgated on 28 March 2025, dismissing the SSHD’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s allowance of the Respondent’s human rights claim in the context of deportation.

 The Respondent became subject to a deportation order following a seven-year prison sentence for COVID-related fraud, having played a leading role in abusing the Bounce Back Loan Scheme for financial gain.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed the Respondent’s human rights appeal, finding that deportation would be unduly harsh on his children, particularly those in need of high support

The Secretary of State appealed, and the Upper Tribunal found no material error of law.

Wednesday 15 – Thursday 16 July 2026

The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London (Appellants/Claimants) v 48th Street Holdings Limited and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 12 June 2025 the Claimant appeals against the order of the High Court dated 15 May 2025 dismissing the claim and ordering to pay the Defendants’ costs.

The case concerned the validity of a business rates mitigation scheme used by 48th Street Holdings Ltd and operated by Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd (POLL), under which POLL temporarily occupied otherwise vacant commercial premises for six-week periods by storing boxes with redundant contents.

The occupation was intended to trigger successive periods of exemption from empty property rates, substantially reducing the landlord’s liability. The City of London Corporation challenged the scheme, arguing that it was an artificial tax-avoidance arrangement that lacked any genuine commercial purpose and therefore fell outside the statutory scheme when interpreted purposively in accordance with the Ramsay principles.

The court rejected that argument, holding that the scheme was lawful and that the occupation satisfied the established requirements for rateable occupation.

Wednesday 15 – Thursday 16 July 2026

The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London (Appellants/Claimants) v 48th Street Holdings Limited and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 12 June 2025 the Claimant appeals against the order of the High Court dated 15 May 2025 dismissing the claim and ordering to pay the Defendants’ costs.

The case concerned the validity of a business rates mitigation scheme used by 48th Street Holdings Ltd and operated by Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd (POLL), under which POLL temporarily occupied otherwise vacant commercial premises for six-week periods by storing boxes with redundant contents.

The occupation was intended to trigger successive periods of exemption from empty property rates, substantially reducing the landlord’s liability. The City of London Corporation challenged the scheme, arguing that it was an artificial tax-avoidance arrangement that lacked any genuine commercial purpose and therefore fell outside the statutory scheme when interpreted purposively in accordance with the Ramsay principles.

The court rejected that argument, holding that the scheme was lawful and that the occupation satisfied the established requirements for rateable occupation.

Wednesday 15 July 2026

Al Othman Holding Company (Appellant/Claimant) v Al Rajhi Holding WLL (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 10 December 2025 the Appellant, Al Othman Holding Company, appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 21 November 2025.

The case concerned a claim by Al Othman Holding Company to recover US$5 million under a 2014 Loan Agreement pursuant to which Al Rajhi Holding WLL had agreed to provide an interest-free loan to facilitate the Claimant’s exit from an underperforming investment. The Defendant contended that the agreement had not been properly authorised and that the claim was statute-barred.

The claim was dismissed because it had been brought outside the applicable limitation period. So, while the Loan Agreement was validly authorised, the claim failed as time-barred.

Wednesday 15 – Thursday 16 July 2026

The King on the application of Fitzgerald (Appellant/Claimant) v The Parole Board for England and Wales and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court dated 27 February 2025 which made no order for costs further to allowing the claimant’s judicial review claim.

The judicial review claim concerned the respondent’s unlawful actions in failing to take any or any appropriate steps to secure a timely hearing and by failing to prioritise to expedite the claimant’s parole review.

Wednesday 15 July 2026

AA and others (Respondents) v Entry Clearance Officer (SSHD) (Appellant) (external link)

The Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal allowing the appeals of a family of Afghan nationals who sought entry to the United Kingdom on Article 8 human rights grounds.

The appellants, who were living unlawfully in Turkey and feared deportation to Afghanistan, were the parents, three sisters, niece and nephew of a refugee in the UK who had indefinite leave to remain. The appellants’ relative had suffered significant trauma in Afghanistan.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, set aside its decision, and subsequently allowed the appeals on the basis of the extensive medical evidence demonstrating the profound impact of the family separation and the existence of protected family life under Article 8.

Thursday 16 July 2026

Evans and another (Appellants/Defendants) v Swansea Building Society (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

This is an appeal against an order of the High Court dated 24 February 2026 ruling that the Defendants’ email request for an oral hearing to reconsider an order dated 20 February 2026 striking out the Defendants’ appeal was not an application notice and was struck out and marked Totally Without Merit.

Thursday 16 July 2026

Randhawa (Appellant) v The Secretary of State for Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals a determination of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) promulgated on 15th January 2025 dismissing the Appellant’s appeal from refusal of application made under the EU Settlement Scheme.

The case concerned a Pakistani national who applied under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) for pre-settled status as the dependent family member of his brother, an EU citizen who had been granted pre-settled status in April 2020. The Appellant had entered the UK from Italy in December 2019, where he held an Italian residence card as a dependent family member of the sponsor, but his passport had not been stamped on entry. Following previous unsuccessful EUSS applications, his application was refused.

Thursday 16 July 2026

The King on the Application of Md Shahadat Hossain (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals against a decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 17 October 2025. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) seeks to challenge the Tribunal’s order allowing a judicial review claim brought by the Respondent.

The case concerns a challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant the Respondent indefinite leave to remain despite a First-tier Tribunal finding that allegations of Educational Testing Service (ETS) deception had not been proved. The Upper Tribunal held that the Respondent should be treated as having accrued continuous lawful residence and therefore qualified for settlement under the 10-year rule.

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)