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 30 June – Wednesday 1 July 2026

Kerish International Motors Agency (Appellant/Claimant) v Opel Automobile GmBH (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 2 August 2024 the Appellant appeals Order dated 7 May 2024 from the Commercial Court (KBD) in which the Judge dismissed the application.

Issue: Whether the Claimant, a family-run Palestinian company operating as a car dealership and trader, qualifies as a “Commercial Agent” under Article 15 of the Palestinian Commercial Agents Law No. 2 of 2000.

If it does, the further issue is whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation from the Defendant, a German car manufacturer, under Palestinian law pursuant to Article 19 contract between the parties, even though that contract is governed by English law.

Tuesday 30 June 2026

Mr Md Abdur Rahim (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of indefinite leave to remain (ILR). The refusal was based on suitability grounds, namely an allegation that the Appellant had used a proxy test taker in an English language test in 2012.

Although the Appellant submitted new evidence relating to his partner and three UK-born children, the Tribunal held that this was a “new matter” requiring the Secretary of State’s consent, which was not given. The appeal was dismissed.

Tuesday 30 June 2026

FD (Respondent/Claimant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

The Respondent, who had held Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) since 1998, was convicted in 2015 of a serious offence and sentenced to over seven years’ imprisonment. This led to a mandatory Deportation Order being made against him in 2017.

The Respondent mistakenly granted an NTL eVisa in December 2024. In September 2025, he travelled to Turkey but was prevented from returning to the UK when the Home Secretary refused him permission to boar, relying on the outstanding Deportation Order.

After his asylum and human rights claim was refused while he was stranded abroad, FD brought a judicial review. The High Court allowed his claim.

Tuesday 30 June – Thursday 2 July 2026

(1) Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd and others (Appellants/Defendants) v Pliego and another (Respondents/Claimants) (external link)

(2) Salinas Pliego and another (Appellants/ Claimants) v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd and others (Respondents/Defendants)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 21 December 2025 the Appellants appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 13 November 2025, with the consequentials judgment being delivered on 27 November 2025.

This case concerns a Commercial Court dispute in which the claimants allege they were induced by fraud into entering a 2021 stock loan agreement. During the proceedings, it emerged that the claimants had instructed a private intelligence firm to obtain confidential information from the defendants’ solicitor through covert and deceptive means.

The court held that the claimants’ conduct was a serious abuse of process. However, striking out the entire claim was considered disproportionate. Instead, the court struck out the claimants’ summary judgment application. At a subsequent hearing, the court granted permission to appeal and cross-appeal

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 22 December 2025 the Appellants appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 13 November 2025, with the consequentials judgment being delivered on 27 November 2025.

Tuesday 30 June – Wednesday 1 July 2026

Rasmala Trade Finance Fund (Appellant/Claimant) v Trafigura Pte Ltd (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 1 August 2025, the Appellant appeals an order of the High Court dated 23 June and 14 July 2025.

The Claimant sought restitution of five multi-million-dollar payments that it made to the Defendant between August 2017 and March 2018 on the basis that, due to a fraud perpetrated by a third party, the payments were made on a mistaken basis.

Tuesday 30 June – Wednesday 1 July 2026

Illiquidx Limited (Respondent) v Altana Wealth Limited and others (Appellants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 27 June 2025 the Appellants, Altana Wealth Limited and Brevent Advisory Limited, appeal a decision of the High Court delivered on 13 February 2025, with a consequentials hearing on 6 June 2025.

Illiquidx Ltd (IX) brought claims against Altana Wealth Ltd and Brevent Advisory Ltd following the collapse of a joint venture to launch an investment fund. IX alleged that the defendants misused confidential information shared under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to launch a competing fund.

The court found that the defendants had breached the NDA and misused IX’s confidential information. However, IX’s copyright claim failed.

Altana and Brevent were held liable for breach of contract, misuse of confidential information, and trade secret infringement. The individual defendants were not personally liable, as they had not knowingly or deliberately participated in the wrongdoing.

Wednesday 1 July 2026

Fatima Omar Ali Ahmed Al Hashimi (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Claimant applied for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision, dated 5 June 2024, refusing her application for registration as a British Overseas Citizen.

Wednesday 1 – Thursday 2 July 2026

(1) Tasib (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

(2) Sohail Tasib (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent/Defendant)

Issue: Whether the Home Secretary acted lawfully and proportionately in using her powers to prevent a long‑term resident with indefinite leave to remain from returning to the UK, before any deportation order had been made.

Thursday 2 July 2026

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

The Secretary of State appeals against a decision of the Upper Tribunal, which upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision allowing the Respondent’s appeal on human rights grounds.

The Respondent arrived in the UK in 2007 as an unaccompanied child and was granted discretionary leave. He has remained unlawfully since 2011 and has a criminal history. Deportation proceedings were initiated, and the Respondent resisted removal on human rights grounds.

Thursday 2 July 2026

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

The Secretary of State (SSHD) appeals against an Upper Tribunal decision which allowed the Respondent’s appeal on European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) grounds in the context of deportation.

The Respondent has a criminal history, including convictions for violent offences and rape, and faced deportation. The Secretary of State had refused his protection and human rights claims.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the Respondent’s appeal. The Upper Tribunal set aside that decision, holding that the FTT had applied the wrong legal test, and allowed the Respondent’s appeal.

Thursday 2 July 2026

Kul and others (Appellants/Claimants)  v DWF Law LLP (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 11 August 2025, the Appellant’s appeal a decision of the High Court dated 22 July 2025.

The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant law firm for alleged breaches of UK GDPR, arguing that the firm unlawfully processed their personal and sensitive data in a spreadsheet used to support allegations of fraud in separate personal injury claims. The High Court dismissed the claims.

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)