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 24 – Wednesday 26 November 2025

(1) Re: J (a child) (external link)
(2) Re: M-S-K-B (children)
(3) Re: P (children)

The issue which falls for determination in these appeals is whether the effect of a declaration of non-parentage in respect of a man who is not married to a child’s mother and is named on the child’s birth certificate as the father, but whom subsequent genetic testing shows is not the child’s biological father, is to render his putative acquisition of parental responsibility void, or whether he has and retains parental responsibility that can only be removed by order of the court.

Tuesday 25 November 2025

Public & Commercial Services Union (claimant/appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (defendant/respondent) (external link)

The claimant below, appeals the decision of HHJ Jarman KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court in the Administrative Court, judgment being delivered on 20 February 2025.

The Claimant is a trade union representing workers in the UK civil service related areas working for Border Force and appeal against the costs orders made.

Tuesday 25 November 2025

Cobden (defendant/appellant) v Cobden (claimant/respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 30 September 2024, the Appellant (Defendant below) appeals the decision of HHJ Russen KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, Business & Property Courts, judgment being delivered on 6 July 2024 following trial.

The Respondent had farmed in partnership with the Appellant in Somerset. Their relationship had broken down and the partnership had been dissolved. The appeal concerned the question as to what should happen to the equal shares of the two partners in a partnership which has been dissolved. 

Tuesday 25 November 2025

Athleta (ITM) Inc (claimant/appellant) v Sports Group Denmark A/S & anr (defendant/respondent) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 17 December 2024, the Appellant appeals the Judgment dated 30 September 2024 and the Order dated 26 November 2024 of Mr David Stone sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List, in which the Judge allowed the Defendant’s counterclaims for revocation and partial revocation of trade marks.

The underlying dispute relates to a trade mark infringement of Athleta Marks and as of 30 November 2021 the passing off of Athleta signs by the Defendants.

The Claimant is in a group of companies who sell women’s clothing, primarily activewear under the brand Athleta. The First Defendant is a Danish company that designs, produces and distributes women’s clothing, accessories and activewear under a brand called Athlecia. The Second Defendant is a UK retailer who sold Athlecia clothing between 30 November 2021 and 24 June 2022.

Tuesday 25 – Wednesday 26 November 2025

The Tower One St George Wharf Ltd (appellant) v HM Revenue and Customs (respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 February 2025, the Appellant (Appellant below) The Tower One St George Wharf Limited, appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), judgment being delivered on 20 November 2024.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the appeal of The Tower One St George Wharf Limited (“Tower One”) against an assessment to stamp duty land tax on its acquisition from another company in the same group of a 999-year lease in respect of a residential property development known as “the Tower”. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Tuesday 25 November 2025

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (appellant) v Various Leaseholders of Brewster and Malting House (respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 9 September 2024 and issued on 22 October 2024 the Applicant (Appellant below) The London Borough of Tower Hamlets, appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber, judgment being delivered on 11 July 2024 following trial, dismissing the appeal from the decision of the First Tier Tribunal that the appellant landlord was not entitled to recover from the respondents, as part of their service charge, the cost of work needed to remedy structural defects caused by the construction of the building using the Large Panel System.

Wednesday 26 November 2025

Rubery (appellant) v Ministry of Defence (respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 November 2024, the Claimant (C) appeals against the order made by the Employment Appeals Tribunal sealed on 14 October 2024 allowing the MOD’s appeal and dismissing the C’s cross appeal –quashing the decision of the Employment Tribunal and substituting a decision striking out the C’s claim.

The issue was whether the ET had erred in reading down additional words into section 121 Equality Act 2010 to enable C to bring a complaint of sex discrimination to the ET under the Human Rights Act about the statutory service complaints process available to member of the armed forces.

Wednesday 26 – Thursday 27 November 2025

Hawes (claimant/appellant) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (defendant/respondent) (external link)

The matter relates to the Claimant’s application for judicial review relating to a challenge to the lawfulness of a decision by the Mayor of the Tower of Hamlets to remove a neighbourhood traffic Scheme after a public consultation.

Wednesday 26 – Thursday 27 November 2025

(1) EAV (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)
(2) GMP (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)

These appeals raise an important issue on the approach to asylum claims where the risk is of trafficking, and the social group is identified by reference to the applicant’s economic situation as well as previous trafficking.

Thursday 27 November 2025

UYR (claimant/respondent) v Derby City Council & ors (defendant/appellant) (external link)

Appeal against the decision of Karen Ridge sitting as a High Court Judge in the Administrative Court in Manchester dated 25 July 2025 in which the judge granted the Respondent interim relief.

The grant of interim relief requiring the Appellant Local Authority to treat the Respondent as a putative child pending final determination.

Thursday 27 November 2025

Duffy (respondent) v Birmingham City Council (appellant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 December 2024 by the Defendant Council (D), appeals against the order made on 29 November 2024 by HHJ Najib (sitting in the County Court at Birmingham) allowing the C’s appeal from an order made by DJ Rouine dated 11 April 2024 and ordering that D’s application to set aside a default costs certificate is remitted to be determined by a Regional Costs Judge.

The D sought to set aside a default costs certificate obtained by C in relation to underlying litigation concerning a housing disrepair case.

Thursday 27 November 2025

Ibrahim (respondent) v The Nursing and Midwifery Council (appellant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Richard Kimblin KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 26 November 2024.

The Respondent was given a 12 month condition of practice order by the Conduct and Competence Committee sitting as the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council following charges relating to fitness to practice and alleged misconduct.

The Respondent appealed to the High Court pursuant to Articles 29(9) and 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The Court found that the panel would either have found that misconduct was not made out, or that it was misconduct of a lesser degree, that the same applied to impairment, and that the sanction would necessarily be a lesser sanction, or no sanction at all. The appeal was successful.

The Appellant now appeals that decision.

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)