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. 

Monday 19 – Wednesday 21 October 2026

Clearview AI Inc (Appellant) v The Information Commissioner (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Justice Heather Williams DBE, Judge Thomas Church and Judge Judith Butler) dated 6 October 2025, allowing in part the Information Commissioner’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal made in 2023 to the effect that the Information Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue the enforcement notice and monetary penalty notice that it issued to Clearview AI Inc in 2022. Privacy International is an Intervener.

This matter pertains to the interpretation of domestic and EU legislation: the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the General Data Protection Regulation. The issue is to what extent the processing of the personal data of UK data subjects by a private company based outside the UK is excluded from the scope of regulation, including where such processing is carried out in the context of its foreign clients’ national security or criminal law enforcement activities.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant / Respondent / Intervener

Lower Court Judgment (external link)

Tuesday 20 – Wednesday 21 October 2026

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

The Appellant appeals the decision Mr Justice Morris sitting in the High Court King’s Bench Administrative Court (Asylum and Immigration), dated 17 December 2025. The issue is whether the Home Secretary may lawfully halt the victim‑identification process, including refusing to make a Conclusive Grounds decision, after issuing a Public Order Disqualification, and whether the Statutory Guidance governing that decision unlawfully fetters the statutory discretion under s.63 NABA when applied to potential victims of trafficking. Anti-Slavery International and the Speaker of the House of Commons are both Interveners.

Tuesday 20 October 2026

The King on the application of Williamson (Respondent) v Caerphilly County Borough Council (Appellant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of HHJ Jarman KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 19 December 2025, by which he decided at an oral hearing that the Respondent’s complaint must be redetermined by the Appellant. The Respondent sought judicial review of the Appellant’s decision dated 11 November 2024 which dismissed his complaints about recurring fouling of his garden by his neighbour’s two cats. The Appellant determined that the matters complained of did not amount to a statutory nuisance within the meaning of section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Tuesday 20 – Wednesday 21 October 2026

Vivid Housing Limited (Respondent) v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE (Appellant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mrs Justice Jefford sitting in the High Court King’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court. The Respondent claims an indemnity under a latent defects insurance policy issued by the Appellant in respect of alleged fire-safety and cladding-related defects at a residential block.

On the Allianz’s CPR 24 application, the Judge refused summary judgment in respect of Defects 1, 2, 3 and 5, holding that Vivid had a real prospect of establishing that passive fire-safety defects can constitute a threat of imminent damage by fire, and that such a threat would ordinarily require immediate remedial or mitigating measures. Summary judgment was granted for Allianz in respect of Defect 4 (cladding bracketry), where there was no evidence that any risk of detachment was imminent.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant and Respondent

Lower Court Judgment (external link)

Tuesday 20 October 2026

SmartestEnergy Business Limited (Appellant) v Odeon Arcade Limited (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mr Justice Cawson, dated 14 November 2025, dismissing the appeal and making a costs order. The issue pertains to the interpretation of paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 6 to the Electricity Act 1989, and whether it is the owner or occupiers of sub-divided parts of a premises who are parties to and therefore liable under the deemed statutory contract for the supply of electricity. British Gas Trading Limited have been granted permission to intervene by way of written submissions.

Tuesday 20 October 2026

The King on the application of T J Trading Express Ltd (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision Mrs Justice Hill DBE dated 22 May 2025, granting the claim for judicial review and quashing the revocation decision of 6 March 2024.

The Home Department made a decision to revoke a sponsorship licence of TJ Trading, a business trading as a petrol station. The director was the Level 1 user of the Sponsor Management System, and issued a Certificate of Sponsorship to his brother-in-law for the position of Petrol Station Manager. The relationship was not declared in the application. The Appellant became aware of this and revoked the licence without notice. The issue raised was whether this was procedurally unfair. The Judge found that the Appellant had acted in a procedurally unfair manner.

Wednesday 21 October 2026

Mex Group Worldwide Limited (Appellant) v Ford and Others (Respondents) (external link)

The Appellant appeals against the order made by Mr Justice Griffiths sitting in the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division, dated 31 March 2026. The Judge ordered an inquiry as to damages under Mex’s cross‑undertaking in respect of a worldwide freezing order that had since been discharged. The application was made by the First, Second and Seventh Respondents only. The judge held that, applying established principles, the Respondents had shown a sufficient, arguable case that they had suffered loss prima facie caused by the worldwide freezing order.

Wednesday 21 October 2026

The Kingdom Hall Trust (Appellant) v Davies (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals with permission granted below, the decision of His Honour Judge Neil Cadwallader handed down on 29 August 2025. The Upper Tribunal heard the appeal of The Kingdom Hall Trust, a charitable company limited by guarantee, from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal in 2024. It concluded that the car park of its land at Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses was subject to a prescriptive right of way. Mr Davies, the owner of the land held to have the benefit of that right of way, cross appealed. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, ordering costs.

Wednesday 21 October 2026

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

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mr Justice Saini sitting in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 19 February 2025.

The Respondent is a Dutch national who arrived with their parents and siblings when aged 7. The latter are all residents of the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme, but the Respondent did not renew their status to remain when it expired. The Appellant issued a notice of intention to deport following the Respondent’s sentence of 45 months imprisonment. A deportation order was made in 2023. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Respondent.

Thursday 22 October 2026

Lamba (Respondent) v London Borough of Enfield (Appellant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals against the order of HHJ Coe KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 28 November 2025. The court declared that the Section 25 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 notice was not validly served on the Respondent and therefore did not terminate a protected business lease.

The Respondent operated a protected business tenancy over 200 High Street, Ponders End. A notice opposing renewal was prepared by the Appellant’s solicitors, shortly before the Appellant acquired the freehold reversion. The Respondent asserts non‑receipt and alleges that the Appellant changed the locks without consent, depriving him of access and causing substantial loss.

Thursday 22 October 2026

Mentmore Golf Investments Limited (Appellant) v Gaymer (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Sir Anthony Mann, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 13 October 2025.

This case concerns a dispute over the lease of Mentmore Golf Course. The freeholder, Mr Gaymer, had leased the property to various tenant companies over time, all of which were ultimately controlled by Mr Simon Halabi. The tenant at the time was Mentmore Greenland Ltd (“Greenland”) and the mortgagee was Mentmore Golf Investments Ltd (“Investments”), both linked to Mr Halabi. The lease was forfeited and a possession order was made and executed against Greenland. Investments then sought relief from forfeiture in separate proceedings. The County Court struck out both claims, finding them abusive and procedurally defective.

Thursday 22 October 2026

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

The Appellant appeals the decision, dated 07 March 2025, of Judge Lane sitting on the Immigration and Asylum Chamber Upper Tribunal. This matter pertains to deportation and whether the threshold in Regulation 27(5) European Economic Area Regulations is met. Permission was granted on that basis that there is a wider point of principle concerned with the nature, scope and extent of a Regulation 27 assessment, and the relevance (or otherwise) of matters such as rehabilitation and proportionality.

Thursday 22 October 2026

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Hugh and Another (Respondents) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mr Justice Meade and Judge Guy Brannan sitting as a Judges of the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber), judgment being delivered on 13 June 2025.

The case concerned whether two investors’ share buybacks were designed to obtain an income tax advantage or simply to secure existing EIS capital gains tax relief before any possible law change. The Upper Tribunal found that their main purpose was to preserve and realise CGT relief, not to avoid income tax, and therefore HMRC’s Transactions in Securities anti-avoidance rules did not apply.

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)