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 21 July 2026

R (H7 & H15) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)


By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 20 August 2025 Appellants, appeal a decision of the High Court, dated 31 July 2025, by which they granted the Respondent’s application for judicial review and ordered Interested Parties to pay the Respondent’s costs.​‌

This case concerned a judicial review brought by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) challenging a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). The Administrative Court ruled in favour of the Home Secretary, finding that SIAC had no power to make the costs award in question. The costs order against the SSHD was set aside, and H7 and H15 were ordered to pay the SSHD’s costs of the judicial review proceedings. Their application for permission to appeal was refused, leading them to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Tuesday 21 July 2026

A (A Child) (external link)

This matter concerns an appeal by the mother against the refusal of her application to stay the enforcement of a child return order.

On 3 June 2026, the lower court made a Return Order directing that the child be returned to the United States of America. The appeal does not challenge the original Return Order itself. Rather, it concerns whether the court was correct to refuse the mother’s application to suspend the implementation of that Return Order pending further proceedings or appeal.

Tuesday 21 – Thursday 23 July 2026

AXA France IARD S.A. and Anr (Respondents/Claimants) v Santander Cards UK Ltd and Anr (Appellants/Defendants) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice submitted on 8 August 2025, the Appellants sought permission to appeal the Order dated 25 July 20205. An Order of the Commercial Court allowed the Respondent’s Claim against the Appellant under an indemnity clause for insurance mis-selling under an Agency Agreement.

This case pertains to Proper Construction of an indemnity clause in relation to the mis-selling of insurance products by the Appellant as agent for the Respondents. In respect of which the Respondent insurer incurred liability, and whether the indemnity had retroactive effect.

Tuesday 21 – Wednesday 22 July 2026

Optiemus Infracom Limited (Appellant/Defendant) v BlackBerry Limited (Respondents/Claimants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 12 February 2026 the Appellant, Optiemus Infracom Ltd, appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 19 December 2025.

BlackBerry brought a claim in 2019 for approximately USD 6.5 million under a handset-licensing agreement but then failed to take meaningful steps to progress the litigation for almost four years after July 2020. The High Court found that this prolonged inactivity was a deliberate decision by BlackBerry

Despite that finding, the Judge refused Optiemus’s application to strike out the claim. Optiemus now appeals the decision

Tuesday 21 – Wednesday 22 July 2026

Glint Pay Ltd and others (Appellants/Claimants) v Baker and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 December 2025 the Appellant, Glint Pay Ltd, Glint Pay Services Ltd and Glint Pay UK, appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 18 August, and a further judgment on 14 November when permission to appeal was refused.

The High Court rejected Glint Pay’s challenge to the appointment of administrators by Niven Alpha, which had acquired Glint’s secured debt and enforced its security following a default.

The Court held that the relevant rights had been transferred to Niven, that Glint had defaulted by failing to provide requested information, and that the administrators were appointed for legitimate enforcement purposes rather than any improper takeover motive.

Tuesday 21 – Thursday 23 July 2026

GI Globinvestment Limited and another (Appellants/Claimants) v XY ERS UK Limited and others (Respondents/ Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 13 May 2025 the Appellants, GI Globinvestment Limited and another, appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 28 March 2025 following trial.

The Claimants alleged that XY ERS UK Ltd, its CEO, and others had fraudulently induced them to invest in products including the Skew Base Fund, while falsely presenting XY as an independent and conflict-free investment adviser.

The Judge found that XY had acted as an investment adviser, owed fiduciary duties, and had represented itself as independent and free from conflicts. However, the allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance, and unlawful means conspiracy failed. The claims against all defendants were therefore dismissed, following a 28-day trial.

Wednesday 22 – Thursday 23 July 2026

ABC (Appellant/Claimant) v Huntercombe (No. 12) Limited and Others (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 20 November 2025, the Claimant appeals against the order from the High Court, handed down on 24 April 2025.

This appeal concerns whether liabilities owed by a hospital operator to a former patient transferred under TUPE when the hospital business was transferred to Active Young People Limited in March 2021.

Wednesday 22 July 2026

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

Issue: Whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) lawfully certified the Appellant’s protection and human rights claims as “clearly unfounded” and, consequentially, whether the Upper Tribunal was right to order that he be returned to the UK despite an existing deportation order.

Thursday 23 July 2026

Gilbert and another (Appellants/Claimants) v Bleakley and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 20 February 2026 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 30 January 2026.

After obtaining a £4.2 million judgment against Broadoak Private Finance Ltd, the Claimants obtained a worldwide freezing order against the Respondents alleging that Broadoak’s assets had been transferred to them. The Court held that there was no valid jurisdictional basis for serving the proceedings on the Respondents in Spain. The Court therefore revoked permission to serve out, set aside service, and discharged the freezing order.

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)