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 18 – Wednesday 19 November 2025
By Appellant’s Notice filed and issued on 7 March 2025 the Appellant (Claimant below) Al Mashariq for Trading and Contract Co, appeal the decision of Mr Justice Bryan, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 14 February 2025.
The Claimant is a Saudi Arabian company, which provides various services within the construction industry.
The dispute arises out of a “Bank Confirmation Letter” and the accompanying “Banker’s Draft” with a face value of US$5,750,000 and bearing the date 17 December 2019, which was purportedly issued by the Defendant but, as has since transpired, is a forgery.
The Claimant’s claimed negligent misstatement, alleging that the Defendant breached its duty of care, resulting in damages due to the Claimant’s reliance on the Defendant’s representations regarding the authenticity of the Banker’s Draft.
Tuesday 18 November 2025
The Secretary of State appeals the order of Chamberlain J, sitting in the Administrative Court, dated 21 March 2025 by which he dismissed its claim for judicial review of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal – Asylum Support handed down on 14 June 2024. She determined appeals under s. 103(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA 1999”) by two individuals, MAH and GK, against decisions to stop providing asylum support and an appeal under s. 103(1) by a third individual, LKL, against a decision to refuse asylum support. The appeals had been linked and heard together as designated lead cases.
The Secretary of State’s claim was that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals.
Chamberlain dismissed the judicial review claim finding that the (a) the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain LKL’s appeal.
Tuesday 18 November 2025
OM (appellant) v Secretary of State of for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)
Appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UT) promulgated on 16th October 2024 dismissing appeal from refusal of asylum and protection claims.
A is a national of Iran of Kurdish ethnicity who entered clandestinely in November 2020 and claimed asylum the same day. A claimed that he was at risk of persecution due to his imputed political opinion and sur place activities in the UK opposing the Iranian regime.
By determination dated 23rd April 2024 the First Tier Tribunal dismissed A’s appeal.
The UT dismissed the appeal finding no error of law.
Tuesday 18 November 2025
By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 February 2025, the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 7 February 2025 of Paul Mitchell KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Business and Property Court declaring that the expert determination by Terence Mowschenson KC, dated 12 February 2023 contained manifest errors and is not final or binding on the parties.
The underlying dispute concerned the effect of a contractual term in an agreement on which the Appellant granted a 99 year lease of the London Stadium to the Respondent, one effect of which was to allow West Ham Football Club to use the stadium as its home ground.
Tuesday 18 November 2025
By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 20 January 2025, the Appellant appeals the Order dated 16 December 2024 of Mr Justice Jacobs sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge dismissed the four Defendant’s application and made a costs order.
The Claimant is The Public Institution for Social Security who is the Respondent to the appeal. The four Defendants (Forty Second to Forty Fifth Defendants below) are the Appellants. The dispute relates to the Claimant’s fraud claims against the Deceased’s estate and sending service of proceedings to the Deceased’s children. The four Defendants (the Deceased’s children) made an application to challenge the English court’s jurisdiction that they are proper parties and made an application to set aside the service of proceedings on the forty-third and forty-fourth Defendants in England and set aside an order dated 25 April 2024 which permitted the Claimant to serve out of the jurisdiction.
Tuesday 18 November 2025
Re: B (a child) (external link)
By an Appellant’s Notice filed at this Court on 22 October 2025, this is an appeal against the decision of Peel J, sitting in the Family Division of the High Court, dated 02 October 2025. The applicant mother appeals the order requiring summary return of the subject child to Romania.
Wednesday 19 – Thursday 20 November 2025
Groom (respondent) v Maritime & Coastguard Agency (appellant) (external link)
The Maritime & Coastal Agency (MCA) appeals against the order sealed on 9 May 2024 made by Gavin Mansfield KC (sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court) in the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) allowing grounds 1 and 2 of the C’s appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET) that C was not a worker and dismissing C’s claim,
The EAT substituted its finding that C was not a worker in respect of attendance at a relevant activity for which he was entitled to remuneration.
The question of C’s worker status arose in the context of a claim for an alleged breach of the right to be accompanied to a disciplinary hearing. But the MCA submits that the consequences of the EAT’s decision are far-reaching in respect of statutory employment rights arising from the status of Coastguard Rescue Officers (who number about 3,100) and for volunteers more generally.
The MCA argues that the ET correctly determined that C was not a worker of the MCA, and that his role was non-contractual and purely voluntary.
Wednesday 19 November 2025
The Appellants appeal the order of Lang J, sitting in the Administrative Court, by which she allowed their judicial review claim in respect of Grounds A(iv) and B(iii) (breach of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) but noted that Section 31(2A)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 applied and accordingly relief was refused. Lang J dismissed the judicial review claim on all other Grounds.
The Appellants sought judicial review of the Respondent’s decisions, on various dates in 2023, to make statutory instruments and issue guidance under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which prohibit and restrict ownership of XL Bully type dogs.
Wednesday 19 November 2025
Bussandra (claimant/respondent) v City of London Corporation (defendant/appellant) (external link)
By appellant’s notice filed on 2 December 2024, the City of London Corporation appeal the order of HHJ Richard Roberts dated 11 November 2024 sitting in the Central London County Court.
Statutory second appeal pursuant to s204 Housing Act 1996, challenge to Judge’s decision to quash the local authority’s review decision.
Wednesday 19 November 2025
By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 29 October 2024, Halton Borough Council, claimant below, appeal the decision of Fordham J sitting in Planning Court dated 21 August 2024 dismissing the claim for judicial review and making a cost order.
The Appellant appeals against the order dismissing its application for judicial review of two costs orders made on 27th July 2022 by an official in the Planning Inspectorate following a public inquiry in January 2022 into an application by M J Gleeson Limited for planning permission for 139 dwellings on land at Sandy Lane, Runcorn.
Wednesday 19 – Thursday 20 November 2025
(1) Vargova (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)
(2) Molnar (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)
Both of these appeals raise an important point of principle governing the application of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union and whether the concept of proportionality applies to a decision to deport an EU national resident in the United Kingdom by reason of criminal conduct committed after the United Kingdom left the European Union and the transition period had expired.
Thursday 20 November 2025
Re: N (a child) (external link)
By an Appellant’s Notice filed at this Court on 5 September 2025, this is an appeal against the decision of Recorder Magennis, sitting in the Family Court, dated 15 August 2025. The applicant mother appeals the making of the Care and Placement Order.
Thursday 20 November 2025
By Appellant’s Notice filed and issued on 22 August 2025, Standard Chartered plc (SC), the Defendant below, appeal the Order of Mr Justice Michael Green dated 4 August 2025 in which he dismissed SC’s application to withhold certain documents from disclosure unless and until regulators in the United States and Singapore granted permission for those documents to be disclosed.
Thursday 20 November 2025
By appellant’s notice filed on 10 September 2024, the Wife and Applicant below, appeals the order of Sir Jonathan Cohen dated 1 August 2024, following his judgment of the same date, sitting in private at the High Court Family Division in Financial Remedy proceedings.
Thursday 20 November 2025
This hearing is to consider sanction for the admitted contempt of court by the Chief Constable which was the subject of the appeal, which has been allowed following a hearing on the 22 October 2025 and Judgment handed down on 11 November 2025.
By appellant’s notice filed on 9 July 2024, the Claimant (C), appeals the order of HHJ Genn dated 11 April 2024 sitting in Central London County Court following a hearing of C’s contempt application on 15 March 2024, whereby the Judge i) dismissed C’s contempt application ii) ordered C to pay D’s costs of the application. The contempt proceedings arise out of the Claimant’s attempts to obtain video footage of her arrest and detention by Northamptonshire Police.
Court 4
- View the live stream from Court 4 on YouTube (external link)
Court 63
- View the live stream from Court 63 on YouTube (external link)
Court 67
- View the live stream from Court 67 on YouTube (external link)
Court 68
- View the live stream from Court 68 on YouTube (external link)
Court 69
- View the live stream from Court 69 on YouTube (external link)
Court 70
- View the live stream from Court 70 on YouTube (external link)
Court 71
- View the live stream from Court 71 on YouTube (external link)
Court 72
- View the live stream from Court 72 on YouTube (external link)
Court 73
- View the live stream from Court 73 on YouTube (external link)
Court 74
- View the live stream from Court 74 on YouTube (external link)
Court 75
- View the live stream from Court 75 on YouTube (external link)
Court 1 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 1 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link)
Court 17 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 17 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link)