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 03 March 2026

A&E Baines (Appellant/Applicant) v The North Yorkshire Council (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 22 August 2025, the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court, dated 4 August 2025, dismissing the statutory challenge and making a cost order.

The High Court dismissed a legal challenge brought by A&E Baines against four Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) made by North Yorkshire Council. The applicant argued that the TROs were unlawful due to inadequate consultation, misleading publicity, and flawed decision-making.

The judge emphasized that the TROs were part of a broader, lawfully adopted transport scheme and that objections to the scheme itself were outside the scope of the challenge. As a result, the application was refused and the TROs remain valid.

Tuesday 03 – Wednesday 04 March 2026

The King on the Application of Thakrar (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 5 February 2025.

The Claimant sought judicial review of the Respondent’s decision to keep him in long‑term segregation within the Close Supervision Centre (“CSC”) regime, having been segregated for over 730 days. He argued that the prolonged segregation breached Articles 3, 8 and 14 ECHR and was unlawful on public law grounds due to inadequate review and insufficient reasoning.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on grounds 1–6 in November 2022. The Defendant admitted that CSC Management Committee decisions between October

The claim was dismissed, save for a limited declaration issued on 5 February 2025, which ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs. Permission to appeal was refused.

Tuesday 03 March 2026

SGL 1 Limited (Appellant) v FSV Freeholders Limited (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 February 2025 the appellant appeals the decision of the High Court (Business and Property Courts) dated 8 January 2025.

The case concerned whether four residential blocks (A, B, C and E) within a single Everton development constituted one “building” under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

The High Court held that all four blocks formed a single “building” for the purposes of the Act, rendering both notices invalid. The decisive factor was the shared means of access, which strongly indicated that the blocks operated as one integrated whole.

As a result, SGL1 Ltd.’s claim for declaratory relief was dismissed.

Tuesday 03 March 2026

Omooba (Applicant/Appellant) v Michael Garrett Associates and another (Respondents) (external link)

The Applicant seeks permission to reopen a permission‑to‑appeal (PTA) application, with the renewed PTA application to be considered immediately if reopening is granted.

In refusing the original PTA, it was held that the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the Claimant’s dismissal was not motivated by her religious beliefs or their manifestation.

Tuesday 03 – Thursday 05 March 2026

(1) Tesco Stores Limited Appellant) v Ms K Element & Others (Respondents) (external link)

(2) Tesco Stores Limited Appellant) v Ms K Element & Others (Respondents)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 February 2025, the Appellant appeals against the order made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), giving directions at a preliminary hearing on equal pay appeals which are to be listed for full hearing.

The appeal concerns whether an appellant to the EAT, having identified errors of law and illustrated them by pointing to specific findings in the Employment Tribunal’s judgment, is thereby confined to challenging only those specific findings, or whether the appeal can extend more broadly to the alleged errors of law.

The context is large‑scale equal pay litigation involving over 47,000 Claimants against Tesco, issued in 2018 and divided into three tranches, none of which has yet been finally determined.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 15 August 2025. The Appellant seeks PTA against the order made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Tesco appeals parts of the EAT judgment of 31 July 2025 which arose from equal value proceedings under the Equality Act 2010. The broader litigation concerns whether the work of female, store‑based claimants is of equal value to that of male distribution‑centre comparators.

The central issue is whether the Employment Tribunal (ET) applied the correct legal test for determining “work”. The Appellant argues that the ET wrongly assessed work by relying on what the employer required in theory, principally through extensive generic training materials, rather than examining what jobholders actually did in practice.

The appeal raises issues of legal approach, procedural fairness and the clarity and adequacy of the ET’s reasoning, with significant implications for more than 50,000 claimants and the retail sector more widely.

Lower Court Judgment 1

Lower Court Judgment 2

Tesco Skeleton Argument

Harcus Claimants Skeleton Argument

Leigh Day Claimants Skeleton Argument

Wednesday 04 March 2026

B-A (Children) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed at this Court on 08 January 2026, the Appellant appeals the decision of the Family Court – Bromley, dated 18 December 2025.

Care proceedings were issued on 4 March 2024 due to escalating concerns regarding parental long‑standing mental health difficulties. On 8 March 2024, the court ordered the removal of the children.

The Family Court ordered annual face‑to‑face contact between two of the children and their father. The Local Authority appeals that aspect of the decision.

Thursday 05 March 2026

Hughes (by her litigation friend, Adrian Pygott) (Appellant/Claimant) v Kirklees Council (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision the High Court, dated 17 December 2025, by which he refused permission to bring a judicial review claim. The Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision dated 10 February 2025 to transfer the ownership of two specialist dementia care homes to a private provider.

Thursday 05 March 2026

Epping Forest District Council (Applicant) v Somani Hotels Limited and others (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 2 December 2025, the Applicant applies for permission to appeal the decisions of the High Court dated 11 November 2025 and 25 November 2025, dismissing the claim for a final injunction and declaratory relief and making a costs order.

Application by the local planning authority for a final injunction to restrain the continued use of the Bell Hotel, Epping, for accommodating asylum seekers and to obtain declaratory relief that such use was not “use as a hotel”.

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)