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.

View previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page. 

Monday 23 February and Wednesday 25 – Thursday 26 February 2026

Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 31 October 2025 the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) appealed against the order of the High Court, which arose from an appeal in the Administrative Court. The Administrative Court had ordered the Appellants to pay costs to Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.

The High Court held that the Legal Services Act 2007 prohibits an unauthorised person from carrying on the conduct of litigation, even under the supervision of an authorised solicitor. The judge set aside the £10,653 costs order and substituted “no order for costs.”

This appeal will no longer be live streamed.

Alternatively, this order permits non-parties to request permission to follow the appeal remotely via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP) and sets out the steps they must take to do so.

Monday 23 February 2026

Re: RB (external link)

The appellant appeals the order of the Court of Protection sitting in the High Court Family Division dated 17 February 2026 refusing the application for permission to bring proceedings and interim relief.

The case concerns serious medical treatment and best interests.

Tuesday 24 February 2026

The King on the application on Moran (Appellant/Claimant) v Medway Council (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 13 March 2025 and sealed on 17 March 2025, the Appellant appeals and order of the High Court dated 20 February 2025 dismissing a claim for judicial review and making a costs order.

This appeal concerns section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Defendant, local planning authority invoked section 70C in the decision challenged declining to determine a planning application submitted by the Claimant in September 2023.

Tuesday 24 February 2026

UK Insurance Limited (Appellant/Defendant) v Laura Attersley (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 01 May 2025, the Defendant appeals against the order of the High Court allowing the Claimant’s appeal.

The defendant made a Part 36 offer. The claimant accepted it 16 months late and argues that late acceptance entitles her to standard, assessed costs rather than the lower fixed costs.

The claimant had originally brought a personal‑injury negligence claim following a road‑traffic accident, with the defendant insurer acting for the other driver.

The issue on appeal is whether a claimant who accepts a Part 36 offer after the expiry of the relevant period is entitled to fixed costs or to costs assessed on the standard basis up to the end of that period.

Tuesday 24 February 2026

Kiko UK Limited (Appellant/Claimant) v Pianoforte Holding SpA (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 July 2025 Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 20 June 2025.

Kiko UK Ltd was the former tenant of 48 Oxford Street under a 2016 lease. In 2019 it assigned the lease to Jamino Ltd, giving an Authorised Guarantee Agreement (AGA), while Jamino’s parent, Pianoforte Holdings S.p.A., provided a Parent Company Guarantee (PCG). When Jamino stopped paying rent, Kiko paid the landlord under the AGA and sought reimbursement from Pianoforte.

A 2022 settlement agreement included a conditional £170,492.18 discount, but Pianoforte failed to comply with the payment schedule, forfeiting the reduction. In 2024 Jamino entered liquidation and disclaimed the lease, requiring Kiko to take a new lease.

Tuesday 24 – Wednesday 25 February 2026

Nicholas & Ors (Respondents/Claimants) v Thomas & Anr (Appellants/Defendant) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 19 20 June 2025, the Defendants High Court orders dated 8 April and 22 May 2025.

This trial concluded a long‑running neighbour dispute involving numerous harassment claims and counterclaims, together with allegations of nuisance and negligence affecting the Claimants’ falcon‑breeding business. The Appellant counterclaimed for harassment.

The Claimants succeeded solely on its nuisance and negligence claim, receiving £258,500 in damages.

Tuesday 24 February 2026

Barot and another (Applicants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (external link)

The Applicant applies for permission to appeal the decision of The Upper Tribunal (UT) dated 31 January 2025 refusing to admit an application for permission to apply for judicial review after an oral hearing.

The UT judge refused to admit the application as there were no good reasons found for the delay. The main applicant was refused leave to remain as a graduate. He entered the UK as a student in February 2022 and convicted of a sex related offence in January 2023.

Wednesday 25 February 2026

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

The Secretary of State for the Home Department appeals the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), issued on 24 February 2025.

The Respondent entered the UK as a student in 2006 and overstayed. After an unsuccessful human‑rights application in 2012. He made a further claim in 2017 based on risk due to his sexuality as a homosexual, which was refused. His appeal was dismissed by the First‑tier Tribunal and upheld by the Upper Tribunal. A fresh claim was accepted in 2023 but again refused.

The First‑tier Tribunal later allowed his appeal which the Secretary of State did not challenge. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside, holding it was procedurally unfair because the Secretary of State had not been given the chance to test the evidence, and remitted the case for a new hearing.

The question is whether the Upper Tribunal was wrong to find procedural unfairness when the First‑tier Tribunal considered the Secretary of State to have implicitly accepted the appellant’s sexuality, meaning a further hearing should not be required.

Wednesday 25 February 2026

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

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) appeals the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that followed a hearing on 3 July 2023.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed SSHD’s appeal against the decision of the First‑tier Tribunal, which had allowed the appeal of the claimant, against the SSHD’s refusal of his asylum and human‑rights claims.

The Respondent, a national of Turkey, entered the UK in 2001 and made an unsuccessful claim for asylum and his appeal was dismissed. In 2007 he was given an indefinite sentence to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years for murdering his wife.

The First-Tier Tribunal found the Claimant was at risk on return and there would be insufficiency of protection.

Wednesday 25 February 2026

Munemo (Respondent) v The City of Wolverhampton Council (Appellant) (external link)

Central issue: Can a person be deemed intentionally homeless when they have obtained a tenancy following misrepresentations made by them to a local housing authority (“LHA”) where the LHA subsequently evicts them as a result?

Thursday 26 February 2026

Orchard and another (Respondents/Defendants) v Dhillon (Appellant/Claimant) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 30 April 2025, the Appellant, who was the Claimant at trial, appeals an order of the High Court, which allowed the Defendants’ appeal against the order of the County Court at Southend.

The Claimant sought possession of a property under ground 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Ground 8 requires the Court to make a possession order where a tenant has more than two months’ rent arrears both at the date of service of the notice and at the date of the final hearing. At trial, the arrears exceeded £97,000, equivalent to 97 months of unpaid rent.

Thursday 26 February 2026

M (Children) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 September 2025, the Appellant appeals findings of fact made in the Portsmouth Family Court.

At the fact finding, the Judge found that the Appellant had exposed a child to emotional harm through repeatedly questioning about an injury and that both parents exposed the children to emotional harm by their arguments. The Judge also found, on the balance of probabilities, that that an injury was inflicted by the Appellant.

Thursday 26 February 2026

London Borough of Hillingdon (Appellant) v AP and SP (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 10 March 2025, the London Borough of Hillingdon, appeals the decision the Upper Tribunal dated 29 November 2024 dismissing the appeal of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) and lifting the suspension of the effect of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.

This case concerns the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) a child with profound and complex needs. The child’s parents appealed to the First‑tier Tribunal under section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014, arguing that section B of the EHCP did not accurately describe AA’s needs, section F did not specify the provision required, and they disagreed with the placement named in section I. Section B was agreed before the hearing, leaving sections F and I in dispute.

Thursday 26 February 2026

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

The Appellant, a Brazilian national convicted in 2012 and later subject to a 2017 deportation order, argued that the order was void because it was linked to an earlier certified refusal decision later withdrawn by the Secretary of State. After completing his prison sentence, he was detained under immigration powers and later released on bail, where he remains subject to reporting and residence conditions. He sought a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that these restrictions lacked lawful authority.

The High Court rejected this, holding that he was not detained to a degree justifying habeas corpus, and in any event the deportation order had never been withdrawn or quashed, meaning it continued to provide a lawful basis for his bail conditions.

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)