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. 

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 February 2026

(1) DSM IP Assets B.V. and another (Appellants/Claimants) v Algal Omega 3 Ltd (in administration) and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

(2) Mara Renewables Corporation (Appellant/Defendant) v DSM IP Assets B.V. and another (Respondents/Claimants)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 9 July 2025 the Appellant appeals an order of the High Court, made on 26 June 2025.
The dispute concerned three European patents owned by DSM, all relating to the production of microbial oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), used in nutritional products like infant formula.
DSM alleged infringement of these patents by Mara’s production of two DHA-rich oils: Mara DHA and Mara DHA Plus. Mara counterclaimed for invalidity on various grounds.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 8 July 2025 the Appellant appeals an of the High Court, made on 26 June 2025.
The dispute concerned three European patents owned by DSM, all relating to the production of microbial oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), used in nutritional products like infant formula.
The patents in question were:
DSM alleged infringement of these patents by Mara’s production of two DHA-rich oils: Mara DHA and Mara DHA Plus. Mara counterclaimed for invalidity on various grounds.

Tuesday 10 February 2026

Safi (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)

This appeal arises from a deportation decision concerning Safi, an Afghan national who arrived in the UK as an unaccompanied minor aged 13 and was granted discretionary leave as a child.

Following a history of criminal convictions the Secretary of State made deportation decisions in 2015 and 2017 and refused Safi’s protection and human rights claims in April 2019.

Safi relied on risks on return to Afghanistan, including Taliban risk linked to his father’s service in the Afghan army, vulnerability, trafficking, westernisation, and risk of destitution.

The First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal on finding a real risk of unlawful killing and inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the SSHD’s appeal, finding no material error of law.

The Secretary of State now appeals to the Court of Appeal.

Tuesday 10 February 2026

Monford Management Limited (The Owners of the Vessel “KIVELI”) (Appellant) v Afina Navigation Limited (The Owners of the Vessel “AFINA I”) (Respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025 the Appellant, Monford Management Ltd, appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 16 May 2025 following trial.

On 13 March 2021, the bulk carriers KIVELI and AFINA I collided off the south coast of Greece. KIVELI turned to port while AFINA I turned to starboard. KIVELI’s bow embedded in AFINA I’s cargo hold, causing significant flooding. No casualties occurred. Both parties brought claims against each other, and the court was asked to determine liability.

The court considered three central issues: whether the encounter was head‑on or crossing, whether either vessel breached the International Collision Regulations (COLREGs), and how liability should be apportioned. It held that from 05:39 the vessels were on nearly reciprocal courses, making this a head‑on situation to which Rule 14 applied, requiring both to turn to starboard.

KIVELI was found to have caused the collision through multiple failures. It breached numerous COLREGs, including Rules 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 17, 34, and 36.

AFINA I’s conduct was largely appropriate: it turned to starboard, but too late, amounting to a breach of Rule 8.

The court concluded that KIVELI’s navigational errors were the primary cause of the collision and apportioned liability at 80% to KIVELI and 20% to AFINA I.

Tuesday 10 February 2026

AM & anr (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

The appellants appeal the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) promulgated on 13 March 2025 dismissing the appeal from the refusal of asylum claims.

The appellants are a mother and minor daughter. They are citizens of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity who arrived by boat from France in April 2021 and claimed asylum. The risk is said to be from AN who wanted to marry the mother through an arranged marriage. She fears an honour killing after she married D and refused to divorce him to marry AN. She claims that AN was a member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

The First‑tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal on credibility grounds, finding inconsistencies in the mother’s account.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

Tuesday 10 February 2026

Fridman (Appellant/Defendant) v Agrofirma Oniks LLC and another (Respondents/Claimants)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 14 February 2025 the Appellant (Defendant below) seeks to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 24 January 2025.

The issue on this appeal is whether the Appellant (a national of Russia and Israel) is to be regarded as having been present in the jurisdiction when, in March 2024 and June 2024, a Claim Form was sent by post to and/or hand-delivered at a property that he owns in London where he had left the jurisdiction in September 2023 and, by reason of sanctions, was (and continues to be) prohibited from returning to or entering the UK and, therefore, from residing at that property.

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 February 2026

Kay (Appellant/Claimant) v Martineau Johnson (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 March, the Appellant appeals the Order dated 25 February 2025 of the High Court Business and Property Courts in Bristol, dismissing the Appellant’s claim in professional negligence against the Respondent (a law firm) on the basis that it is barred by a limitation defence.

The Respondent advised the Appellant on her divorce, including a settlement reached at a Financial Dispute Resolution hearing in 2008.

After her financial circumstances changed, the Appellant sought further advice in November 2008 and May 2009 and was told the settlement could not be reopened. She alleges that the advice to accept the settlement was negligent and caused a loss of approximately £1.274 million.

Wednesday 11 February 2026

Bokqui (Appellant) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

Issue: whether the requirement of lawful residence for most of the Appellant’s life in Exception 1 in Section 117C(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is negated if that residence is later found to have been obtained by deception, because the application was made using a false identity, and whether that means that the residence was not lawful.

Permission to appeal was granted in part on the issue of whether the requirement in the Exceptions in Section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for lawful residence in Exception 1(a) cannot be met where residence that initially appeared to be lawful was in fact obtained by deception, because it was sought using a false identity. This affects whether the Appellant has been lawfully resident for most of his life for the purposes of Exception 1(a).

Wednesday 11 – Thursday 12 February 2026

Roberts (Appellant) v Severn Trent Water Limited and Severn Trent PLC and Others (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 3 June 2025, the Appellant, claimant below, appeals decision of the Competition Appeals Tribunal dated 7 March 2025, dismissing six applications by the Appellant as the proposed class representative (“PCR”) for collective proceedings orders.

The Appellant seeks collective proceedings orders on an opt‑out basis against six water and sewerage undertakers. These companies operate as statutory monopolies under the Water Industry Act 1991 and are regulated by the Water Services Regulation Authority, which controls pricing and sets pollution‑related performance targets linked to financial incentives and penalties.

It is alleged that the undertakers significantly under‑reported pollution incidents, enabling them to charge household customers more than permitted. The proposed class representative seeks to bring the claims on behalf of all affected household customers, alleging an abuse of a dominant position contrary to section 18 of the Competition Act 1998, and seeks aggregate damages representing the overcharge. Ofwat intervened in the applications.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the abuse‑of‑dominance claims were excluded by section 18(8) of the Water Industry Act 1991 but stated that, if they were not excluded, it would have granted collective proceedings orders.

Wednesday 11 – Thursday 12 February 2026

VTB Bank PJSC (Appellant/ Defendant) v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., London Branch and Others (Respondents/Claimants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 1 July 2025 the Appellant VTB Bank PJSC, appeals the order of the High Court delivered on 13 June 2025.

The case concerns anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) sought by various JP Morgan entities (the “JPM Entities”) to restrain VTB Bank PJSC, a Russian state-owned bank, from pursuing proceedings in the Russian courts that allegedly breach English law arbitration agreements.

The dispute concerns several financial agreements between the JPMorgan entities and VTB: the Unallocated Metals Account Agreement, the Client Agreement, and the ISDA Master Agreement. After sanctions were imposed on VTB following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, JPMorgan closed out transactions and withheld payments on sanctions‑compliance grounds.

VTB then brought three sets of proceedings in Russia relating to each agreement. Although framed as tort claims under Russian law, the English court concluded that they were attempts to enforce contractual obligations governed by English law.

JPMorgan sought to make its interim anti‑suit injunctions final, extend them to additional affiliates, and obtain anti‑enforcement injunctions to prevent VTB from enforcing any Russian judgments. VTB contested jurisdiction and asked the court to discharge the injunctions.

Thursday 12 February 2026

The King on the application of YC (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

The appellant appeals the decision of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber dated 12 March 2025 dismissing the claim for judicial review after a substantive hearing.

The applicant is a Chinese citizen born in 1971 who applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on 29 March 2019. His asylum claim was refused on 8 November 2023, but he was granted indefinite leave to remain. On 5 December 2023, the applicant received his biometric residence permit, which stated that he had limited leave to remain. His representatives wrote to the Secretary of State to request clarification. In an email on 22 December 2023, the Secretary of State confirmed that limited leave to remain had been issued and that this replaced the earlier grant of indefinite leave to remain.

The tribunal considered whether the Secretary of State is entitled to correct an error where the wrong decision has been communicated through inadvertence. It was held that the Secretary of State did have the power to make such a correction, as this is reasonably incidental to the statutory powers to grant or refuse indefinite leave to remain. It was further held the decision communicated on 22 December 2023 was lawful.

Thursday 12 February 2026

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

The Appellant appeals the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dated 30 October 2024, dismissing the appeal against the refusal of an application for leave to remain based on very significant obstacles to return to Bangladesh and on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Appellant is a national of Bangladesh who entered the United Kingdom in 2009 as a student. His leave was curtailed and expired in September 2015, after which he remained unlawfully. He later married a national of India. He claimed that he would face very significant obstacles on return to Bangladesh and that Article 8 was engaged because he and his wife could not enjoy family life together in either India or Bangladesh.

The First‑tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It did not apply the Presidential Guidance on vulnerability because the applicant’s mental health or vulnerability had not been raised at the hearing. The Tribunal found that he did not face very significant obstacles to reintegration. After conducting the Article 8 balancing exercise, it found that removal would not be unduly harsh and would be proportionate.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

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)