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 23 June 2026

Suresh and others (Appellants/Claimants) v General Medical Council (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 24 April 2025 the Appellants appeal against the order from the High Court dated 3 April 2025 striking out the Claimant’s claims on the Defendant’s application for strike out/summary judgment.

Issue: whether the Deputy Judge was wrong to strike out the Claimants’ claims. 

Following Dr Suresh’s suicide on 2 May 2018 during a General Medical Council (GMC) fitness-to-practise investigation, his family brought claims in negligence and under the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging the GMC’s actions caused psychiatric injury leading to his death.

They argued the GMC owed a duty of care in how it notified and conducted the investigation. The GMC denied liability. The Deputy Judge struck out the claim, holding that the GMC did not owe the deceased a duty of care in these circumstances.

Tuesday 23 June 2026

(1) 1)LMN 2) EFG (Appellants/Claimants) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pension (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

(2) 1)LMN 2) EFG (Appellants/Claimants) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pension (Respondent/Defendant)

The Appellants appeal a decision of the High Court, dated 18 July 2025 which dismissed judicial review claims.

The judicial review claim was brought, with the support of the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), by two mothers who are entitled to Universal Credit and affected by the ‘two child benefit cap’.

They challenged the regulations made in exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers to create exceptions from the ‘cap’. Those exceptions do not apply to their circumstances. The judge dismissed the claims.

Tuesday 23 – Wednesday 24 June 2026

Westminster City Council (Appellant/Claimant) v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Limited and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 August 2025 the Appellant, Westminster City Council, appeals a decision from the High Court delivered on 22 July 2025 following trial.

In 2013, Westminster City Council approved a requiring 16 flats to remain affordable housing. After the housing provider was deregistered in 2023, the mortgagee sold the flats in 2024 to a private buyer. The Council argued the affordable housing obligations still applied.

The key issue was whether a clause exempting mortgagees (and their successors) applied, depending on whether the borrower was a Registered Social Provider at the time of the mortgage or at the time of sale.

The Judge held that the relevant time is when the mortgage was granted. The Council’s claim failed, and the injunction preventing market letting was lifted.

Tuesday 23 June 2026

Rhian Bernard Guerrero (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant entered the UK in September 2020 and claimed asylum in January 2021. Although the claim was refused, the SSHD mistakenly issued a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) granting leave to remain until 31 December 2024. The Appellant appealed the refusal, but the Secretary of State for Home Department argued the BRP was issued in error.

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) held the BRP was a valid grant of leave and treated the appeal as abandoned. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal held it had jurisdiction and that substance, not form, determined the nature of the decision. It found the BRP had been issued in error and was not a valid grant of leave.

Tuesday 23 June 2026

(1) D (A Child) (external link)

(2) D (A Child)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 March 2026, the Appellant Mother appeals the order dated 4 February 2026 from the Family Court, making a special guardianship order, refusing the maternal grandmother’s contact application and the making of a prohibited steps order.

A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) was made in favour of the maternal grandmother (MGM) in 2021 after the mother’s mental health deteriorated. In 2024, new concerns arose based on the child’s exposure to conflict between the mother and MGM, breach of the SGO by leaving the child in the mother’s sole care, and the mother’s behaviour during removal.

At the final hearing, the judge made a new SGO in favour of the foster carer, who had cared for the child for 17 months.

(2) By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 19 March 2026, the Appellant appeals the order dated 4 February 2026 from the Family Court. The Appellant is the maternal grandmother, who seeks to appeal the Special Guardianship Order and refusal of deemed application for a Contact Order.

Tuesday 23 June 2026

(1) Auden McKenzie (Pharma Division) Limited and Another (Appellants) v The Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) (external link)

(2) Allergan Unlimited Company (formerly Allergan PLC) (Appellant) v Competition & Markets Authority (Respondent)

(3) Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and others (Appellants) v Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 18 March 2025. The appellants, with permission granted by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on 4 March 2025, appeal against said Tribunal’s decision of 15 July 2021. The decision concerned infringements of the Competition Act 1998, in relation to the sale of instant release hydrocortisone tablets. Hydrocortisone is a long-established pharmaceutical product that is used to treat adrenal insufficiency. These matters deal with abuse of dominance infringements. cartel infringements, and unfairness and disproportionality regarding penalty.

Wednesday 24 June 2026

Decolace Properties Ltd (Appellant) v Antony Nygate & Shane Crooks (as Joint Liquidators) and another (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 28 August 2025, the Appellant appeals decisions of the High Court dated 19 June 2025 and 7 August 2025 dismissing applications and making a costs order.

After a three‑day trial in June 2025, the court considered Decolace’s application to vary or set aside Land Registry restrictions and freezing orders over properties. Decolace failed to comply with directions on evidence and disclosure, and its late application for relief from sanctions was refused.

The court allowed the claimants to amend their defence and dismissed Decolace’s relief application. Decolace was later permitted to withdraw its main application but barred from bringing similar claims without permission. It was ordered to pay indemnity costs, including £108,000 on account and additional sums for related applications.

Wednesday 24 June 2026

Vince (Appellant/Claimant) v Associated Newspapers Limited (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 27 June 2025, the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court dated 9 June 2025 dismissing the claim and entering summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing the cross-application for summary judgment, and making a cost order.

The Claimant brought a UK GDPR claim for unfair data processing concerning an article published in June 2023. The court held this was an abuse of process, as it should have been raised with his earlier defamation claim. The court also held that the claim had no real prospect of success.

Thursday 25 – Friday 26 June 2026

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

The State for the Home Department (SSHD) appeals an Upper Tribunal (UTIAC) decision that allowed the Respondent’s appeal against refusal of a six‑month visit visa for medical treatment.

The Respondent sought to visit her British daughter and son‑in‑law, who could fund her treatment. The SSHD doubted she was a genuine visitor who would return.

The First-Tier Tribunal held there was no human rights claim and so no jurisdiction. However, the Upper Tribunal set this aside, finding the refusal did engage human rights. On remaking, it allowed the appeal under Article 8 ECHR.

Thursday 25 June 2026

The King on the Application of Caroline Griffiths Fowell (Respondent/Claimant) v Birmingham City Council (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

Birmingham City Council appeals a November 2025 decision in which the High Court allowed the claimant’s judicial review, found the Council in breach of its housing duty, ordered it to provide suitable accommodation, and awarded costs against it.

Thursday 25 – Friday 26 June 2026

Moorwand Ltd (Appellant/Defendant) v Hamblin and others (Respondents/Claimants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 25 April 2025 the Appellant, Moorwand Ltd, appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 4 April 2025.

The Respondents, victims of a £160,000 push-payment fraud, sued Moorwand (the payment provider) and RND (the recipient company). After losing at first instance, they appealed.

The High Court allowed the appeal on the derivative claim, finding Moorwand should have been on inquiry about fraud and ordering it to restore the funds to RND’s account. However, the claim under the Payment Services Regulations failed, as Moorwand had followed the required procedures. The ruling concerned restoration of the account balance only, not ultimate entitlement to the funds.

Friday 26 June 2026

JSC Kazan Oil Plant (Appellant) v Aves Trading DMCC (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 November 2025 JSC “Kazan Oil Plant” appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 21 October 2025.

This case concerns a company had filed its court challenge in time after an arbitration decision was made on 26 March 2025. Kazan Oil Plant filed its appeal 43 days after the award but within 28 days of receiving it, arguing time should run from receipt due to delays caused by sanctions.

The court held that the 28‑day limit runs from the date of the award, not receipt. It refused an extension of time. Accordingly, the appeal was out of time, struck out, and dismissed.

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)