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.

The Court would welcome your feedback on the pilot scheme. If you wish to share any, please complete this feedback form.

View previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page. 

Tuesday 7 July 2026

Clifford Stewart Lay and another (Appellants/ Claimants) v Independent Vetcare Limited (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 May 2026 the Appellants appeal a decision of the High Court delivered on 23 April 2026.

The dispute arose from IVL’s acquisition of Easy Direct Debits Ltd (EDD) from the Appellants under a share purchase agreement containing warranties that EDD had operated lawfully. After completion, a disagreement over earn-out payments led the Appellants to sue for sums allegedly due, while IVL counterclaimed for breach of warranty.

The court held that IVL’s inconsistency alone did not amount to an abuse of process and refused to strike out the counterclaim, holding that the legality of EDD’s business model should be determined at trial on the full evidence.

Tuesday 7 – Friday 10 July 2026

(1) Lufthansa Technik AG (a company incorporated in Germany) (Appellant/Claimant) v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & anr (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

(2) Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & ors (Appellants) v Lufthansa Technik AG (Respondent)

(3) Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems & anr (Appellants) v Lufthansa Technik AG (Respondent)

(4) Lufthansa (Appellant) v Safran (Respondent)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025, the Appellant, Lufthansa Technik AG, seeks to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 21 February and the dependent decision delivered on 30 April 2025.

Lufthansa previously succeeded in patent infringement claims against Astronics, Panasonic, and Safran. The dispute forms part of wider, long‑running litigation starting in Germany in 2010. UK proceedings began in 2017 (Astronics and Safran) and 2019 (Panasonic).

The court held Lufthansa was entitled to interest because once profits were earned, the defendants were treated as holding them for Lufthansa.

The Appellant argues that the legal framework for calculating profits wrongly reduced the number of profits they should have been awarded. Thus, the Appellant appeals the methodology that reduced the recoverable profit.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025, the Appellant, Astronics Advanced Systems Limited (Defendants below), seeks to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 21 February and the dependent decision delivered on 30 April 2025.

Lufthansa succeeded in patent infringement claims against Astronics, Panasonic and Safran and chose an account of profits. The dispute forms part of wider, long‑running litigation starting in Germany in 2010. UK proceedings began in 2017 (Astronics and Safran) and 2019 (Panasonic).

The court held Lufthansa was entitled to interest because once profits were earned, the defendants were treated as holding them for Lufthansa. Astronics argues that the judge wrongly refused to make the profits award provisional, improperly downplaying the risk of double recovery and overlooking key factors such as Lufthansa’s potential windfall and the unresolved foreign proceedings. They also say the judge had no lawful basis to award interest, and challenge the interest rate selected.

(3) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 June 2025, the Appellants (Defendants below) Astronics Advanced Systems Limited and others, seek to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 20 March 2025.

This matter concerns Lufthansa’s European patent relating to in‑seat power supply systems for aircraft. Astronics supplied components for such systems, Safran integrated them into seats, and Panasonic incorporated them into its in‑flight entertainment systems. The patent had already been upheld as valid and infringed in earlier proceedings

The court found that all defendants infringed: Astronics indirectly, Safran directly, and Panasonic under common design.

(4) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 10 June 2025 and issued on 12 June 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 30 April 2025 following trial.

This matter concerns an account of profits for patent infringement. The court held that it does have equitable jurisdiction to award interest on an account of profits. The court refused to make a provisional award or include a recital in the order to allow future adjustments.

Tuesday 7 July 2026

F (Children) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 May 2026, the Appellant appeals two decision from the Family Court, dated 2 April 2026 and 7 May 2026.

The have been living in a residential assessment placement since April 2025. The Local Authority proposes the children’s immediate removal to a bridging foster placement.

Tuesday 7 – Wednesday 8 July 2026

Meta Platforms Inc and Others (Appellants/Defendants) v Gormsen (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 6 November 2025 the Appellants appeal a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal dated 30 September 2025, granting the Respondent permission to re-amend her Amended Claim Form.

Issue as to whether the Tribunal was wrong to hold that it is “arguable” that user damages are available to the Class Representative because user damages are unavailable in non-proprietary statutory torts, including competition claims.

Tuesday 7 July 2026

E (A Child) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 27 March the Appellant appeals a decision of the Family Court, dated 19 March 2026. Appellant appeals the final child arrangements order transferring the residence of the child from the father to the mother.

Wednesday 8 July 2026

Gupta (Appellant/Defendant) v Sucden Financial Limited and Others (Respondents/Claimants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 27 October 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of High Court, delivered on 30 July 2025.

Sucden alleged that the Appellant and others fraudulently induced it to delay enforcing TMT Metals AG’s debts by offering a bill of lading as security that was allegedly worthless.

The Appellant challenged the English court’s jurisdiction, but the court found there was a serious case to answer and a good arguable case that Sucden suffered loss in England.

Given an English-law contract, London-based events, and existing proceedings against TMT in England, the court held that England was the appropriate forum. It therefore refused the Appellant’s application and allowed the claims against him to proceed in the English courts.

Wednesday 8 July 2026

Orton (Appellant/Claimant) v Barclays Bank UK Plc t/a Barclaycard (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 17 April 2025 the Appellant appeals against paragraph 1 of an order of the County Court dated 27 March 2025

The Appellant brought a claim against the Respondent for about £2,750, arguing that he had been treated unfairly because the bank had not told him about commission it received in connection with a PPI policy.

The bank made offers that would have ended the case in small claims court, with each side paying its own costs, but no agreement was reached. Less than two weeks before the trial, the claimant withdrew his claim

The bank asked the court to order the claimant to pay its legal costs, arguing that the Appellant’s conduct was unreasonable. Although parties in the small claims court do not normally have to pay the other side’s legal costs, the judge found that this was one of the rare cases where an exception applied. The claimant appealed that decision, but the appeal judge agreed with the original ruling.

Wednesday 8 July 2026

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

The Appellant appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) dated 8 July 2025.

The Appellant brought judicial review proceedings after the Home Office missed an agreed deadline to reconsider his entry clearance application. Shortly after the claim was issued, the Home Office made its decision.

Although Judge Hirst accepted that the applicant had effectively obtained the outcome sought and could be viewed as the successful party, he made no order for costs because the applicant had failed to send a fresh pre-action letter addressing the delay before starting proceedings. As a result, each party bore its own costs.

Wednesday 8 – Thursday 9 July 2026

E J W Builders Limited and another (Appellants/Claimants) v Marshall and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 22 October 2025 the Appellants appeal a decision of the High Court delivered on 1 October 2025 following trial.

This case concerned the redevelopment of the Hilbury Court Hotel in Trowbridge into four townhouses. The Appellants claimed that they had entered a partnership or joint venture with the Respondents to carry out the development. The Respondents denied that any partnership or joint venture existed.

The court held that there was no partnership or joint venture and no agreed terms beyond those contained in the JCT building contract.

Wednesday 8 July 2026

Abri Group Limited (Respondent/Claimant) v Al-Chalaan & Anr (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 25 June 2025 the Appellant appeals paragraphs 1 and 2 of an order of the County Court.

The Appellant has held an assured tenancy of a property since 29 March 2004. Between 2020 and December 2023 he was in Iran. Octavia served a notice to quit and subsequently issued possession proceedings in April 2023, alleging that he had ceased to occupy the property as his principal home.

A possession hearing proceeded in June 2023 where possession was granted. The central issue on the proposed second appeal is whether service of the claim form at the property was valid, given the Respondent’s knowledge about the Appellant’s extended absence abroad and communications from family members concerning his whereabouts.

Thursday 9 July 2026

(1 )D (A Child) (external link)

(2) D (A Child)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 March 2026, the Appellant Mother appeals the order dated 4 February 2026 from the Family Court, making a special guardianship order, refusing the maternal grandmother’s contact application and the making of a prohibited steps order.

A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) was made in favour of the maternal grandmother (MGM) in 2021 after the mother’s mental health deteriorated. In 2024, new concerns arose based on the child’s exposure to conflict between the mother and MGM, breach of the SGO by leaving the child in the mother’s sole care, and the mother’s behaviour during removal.

At the final hearing, the judge made a new SGO in favour of the foster carer, who had cared for the child for 17 months.

(2) By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 19 March 2026, the Appellant appeals the order dated 4 February 2026 from the Family Court. The Appellant is the maternal grandmother, who seeks to appeal the Special Guardianship Order and refusal of deemed application for a Contact Order.

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)