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.
Friday 17 October 2025 at 12:30pm
Summary of Judgment being handed down at same date further to the appeal hearing heard on the 25 September 2025.
By Appellant’s Notice filed on the 8 August 2025 the Secretary of State for the Home Department appeals the decision of Mr Justice Chamberlain, sitting in the Administrative Court, dated 6 August 2025, by which he dismissed her objection on alternative remedy grounds to the Claimant’s application for permission to claim judicial review. Mr Justice Chamberlain determined as a preliminary issue that an application to the Defendant to deproscribe Palestine Action, coupled with an appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, is not a suitable remedy.
Tuesday 21 October 2025
MS Amlin Marine NV (respondent) v King Trader Ltd & ors (appellants) (external link)
By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 20 September 2024, the Appellants appeal the Order dated 30 July 2024 of Mr Justice Foxton sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge held there was a “pay first” or “pay to be paid” clause and made a costs order.
The Claimant Ms Amlin Marine NV is the Respondent to the appeal. The three Defendants are (1) King Trader Limited (2) Bintan Mining Corporation (3) The Korea Shipowner’s Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association. The First and Third Defendants are the Appellants.
The dispute relates to whether Clause 30.13 was incorporated in the marine insurance issued by the Claimant regarding their liability.
The First and Third Defendants were owed $47 million by the Second Defendant for grounding a bulk carrier called “SOLOMON TRADER” in the Solomon Islands in February 2018 which led to losses.
Tuesday 21 – Wednesday 22 October 2025
Bailey (appellant) v Stonewall Equality Ltd & ors (respondents) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 29 August 2024, the Claimant (C) appeals against the order made by Bourne J, sitting in the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), sealed on 24 July 2024 dismissing her appeal from a decision made by the Employment Tribunal (ET).
The C, a barrister, was a member of Garden Court Chambers. She brought her claim against Stonewall and R2 (a service company owning Garden Court) and the members of Garden Court (R3s). The claim against Stonewall arose because Stonewall made a complaint to Garden Court about C’s expression of her beliefs in a number of tweets.
Her claim succeeded against R2 and R3s, who played no role in the appeal at the EAT. The ET found that they had directly discriminated against her because of the protected characteristic of belief (ie gender critical views) contrary to s 47 of the Equality Act 2010.
The C’s claim against Stonewall was dismissed, this is the ruling against which C appealed to the EAT.
Tuesday 21 October 2025 – This matter will no longer be streamed as the hearing has been adjourned
Kone (respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (appellant) (external link)
Appeal against the order of Upper Tribunal Judge Jackson dated 30 July 2024 which granted the claim for judicial review after a substantive hearing and ordered that the SSHD’s decision of 17 October 2023 is quashed.
The applicant, as in the lower court, made an application to enter the UK as a dependent child which was refused on 25 June 2019 and upheld in a decision dated 17 October 2023. The SSHD instead granted her limited leave to remain. The applicant argued that the SSHD erred in making this decision.
At the substantive hearing the judge found that the applicant should have been assessed for her application under paragraph 297 and she is not prevented in succeeding under that provision because of a different grant of leave.
Tuesday 21 October 2025
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 31 October 2024, the Defendant below appeals the order of HHJ Klein (sitting as a High Court Judge) dated 11 October 2024 in which he gave judgment for the claimant on their debt claim.
The Claimant (“Harworth”) sought recovery of the principal sum of £399,989.06 as an additional payment which it claims it is due under an agreement, dated 14 October 2021, for the sale and purchase of York Holiday Park Development which was made between it and the Defendant (“Westfield”).
Tuesday 21 – Wednesday 22 October 2025
By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 12 September 2024, the Appellants appeal the Order, dated 8 and 24 July 2024 of Nicholas Caddick KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Business and Property Courts, Patents Court in which the Judge ordered that the Claimant’s claim succeeded and dismissed the Defendants’ Counterclaims.
The underlying dispute relates to a trade mark and copyright infringement claim and the Defendants’ sale of complete retrofitted AGA cookers with the eControl System.
Wednesday 22 October 2025
Re: R (children) (external link)
By an Appellant’s Notice filed at this Court on 5 August 2025, this is an appeal against the decision of the President of the Family Division, sitting in the Family Division of the High Court, dated 22 July 2025. The applicants in this case are the children, by their litigation friend, who seek to appeal the dismissal of their application to set aside the return order to the USA dated 5 November 2024, confirmed on 26 June 2025.
Wednesday 22 October 2025
Appeal from the order of Farbey J dated 4 December 2024 from judgment handed down on 20 November 2024. The judgment dismissed the appellants’ claim for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s Final Order issued on 19 December 2022 requiring the First Applicant to sell its 100% shareholding in the Interested Party (UPP Corp Ltd).
The Applicants are part of the LetterOne investment group (L1) which is headquartered in Luxembourg and makes long term investments in companies operating in various sectors. Upp is a small company developing a fibre broadband network in East Anglia. The Frist Applicant acquired 100% of the share capital in Upp on 21 January 2021 as a start-up investment.
Wednesday 22 October 2025
Nguyen (appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)
Appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) promulgated on 8 March 2024.
The appellant is a national of Vietnam, who came to the UK in 2003 using a false identity. He was refused his asylum claim and the appeal was unsuccessful but then was deported from the UK in 2007 following a drugs-related conviction. He sought the revocation of the deportation order, and permission to enter the UK, in order to re-join his family, who remained here following his deportation. He made a HR claim which was refused on 31 December 2020 and the second HR claim was refused on 6 July 2022.
Wednesday 22 October 2025
Singaram (appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) (external link)
Appeal the decision of Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Administrative Court, refusing permission to apply for judicial review after an oral hearing on 1 March 2024.
The applicant claims that he is an experienced IT professional, having worked as an executive in the IT industry in India for the past 10 years. He wished to develop his career by pursuing a Master’s degree in Management Studies in the UK with a view to securing a job in project management.
The applicant had leave to enter the UK as a student. He also worked at Tesco and claimed to be undertaking training at a corner store. The applicant was initially detained and has his leave to enter cancelled as he was found to be in breach of a condition of his visa limiting employment to 20 hours per week in term-time.
The Admin Court found that it was reasonably open to the SSHD to conclude that the applicant’s account was inconsistent, unreliable and improbable. Further, it was reasonably open to the SSHD to conclude that the applicant was working in excess of his 20-hour weekly permitted visa condition limit and it was reasonably open to the SSHD to decide to cancel his leave to enter as a student.
Wednesday 22 October 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.
Thursday 23 October 2025
LR (a child by mother and Litigation Friend LC) (appellant) v Coventry City Council (respondent) (external link)
The appellant appeals the order of HHJ Tindal dated 4 February 2025 by which he allowed the Appellant’s judicial review claim in part, quashing the Respondent’s Defendant’s assessment under the Children Act 1989. The Appellant is a child and the case is brought through her mother and litigation friend.
The Appellant’s family have ‘no recourse to public funds’, namely no access to the mainstream benefits and housing systems due to their restricted immigration status. They are supported by the Respondent local authority with subsistence payments. A judicial review challenge was brought in relation to the Respondent’s assessment of the family’s neds and the level support provided to the family.
Thursday 23 October 2025
Rogerson (appellant) v Erhard-Jensen Ontological/Phenomenological Initiative Ltd (respondent) (external link)
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 September 2024, the Claimant appeals against the order made by the Employment Appeals Tribunal sealed on the 20 August 2024.
The judge struck out detriment 3 from the Claimant’s whistleblowing detriment case as being protected by judicial proceedings immunity. The proceedings were remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the outstanding issues.
Thursday 23 October 2025
(1) Veliks (defendant/appellant) v Playtech Software Ltd (claimant/respondent) (external link)
(2) Realtime SIA (4th defendant/appellant) v Playtech Software Ltd (claimant/respondent)
Both appeals are filed by the defendants below who appeal the decision of the Honourable Mr Justice Thompsell, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, sitting in the \business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List, judgment being delivered on 18 December 2024 following trial.
This action concerns allegations of misuse of confidential information relating to online gambling games developed by the Respondents (Claimants below).
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)