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 3 – Wednesday 4 February 2026

Salts Healthcare Ltd (Appellants/Claimant) v Pelican Healthcare Ltd (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 23 April 2025 the Appellant (Claimant below) Salts Healthcare Ltd, appeals the decision of the High Court Chancery Division, delivered on 5 March following trial.

Salts Healthcare (“Salts”), proprietor of UK Patent GB 2 569 212 concerning ostomy appliances (the “Patent”), brought a claim against Pelican Healthcare (“Pelican”), seller of the “ModaVi” ostomy bag. Salts alleged that the ModaVi infringed claims 5, 8, and 20 of the Patent, both on a normal interpretation and under the doctrine of equivalents. Pelican denied infringement and alleged that the Patent was invalid due to lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. Salts also applied to conditionally amend the Patent.

Tuesday 3 February 2026

Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP, Muller Dairy UK Limited, Robert Wiseman and Sons Limited, TM UK Production Limited (Appellant) v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) (external link)

The central issue was whether Corporation Tax Act 2009 (“CTA 2009”) s 1259, which requires partnership profits to be calculated as if earned by a UK‑resident “notional company” where any partner is a company subject to UK corporation tax, also imports the CTA 2009 Part 8 intangible‑asset rules, including the related‑party exception that restricts deductions for debits on intangibles acquired from related parties.

The appellants argued that the corporate LLP members could not be related parties because s 1259 required only the assumption that the notional company carried on the LLP’s trade, not that it had owners, controllers or constitutional documents. They contended the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) erred in treating LLP membership rights as equivalent to ownership or control of the notional company.

The Upper Tribunal (“UT) upheld the FTT’s decision. However, the UT emphasised that only attributes necessary for the profit computation should be deemed, not all characteristics of an actual company.

The appeals were dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused by the Upper Tribunal on 30 October 2024. The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Tuesday 3 – Wednesday 4 February 2026

Deckers UK Limited (Appellant/Defendant) v Up and Running (UK) Ltd (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 5 December 2024, Deckers UK Limited, defendant below, appeals the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal dated 31 October 2024 finding that the defendant breached the Chapter I Prohibition contained within the Competition Act 1998.

Up & Running, a United Kingdom retailer, claimed before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) under section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 that Deckers UK Limited infringed section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (the Chapter I Prohibition) by restricting its ability to sell HOKA‑branded products online. After Up & Running proposed in July 2020 to launch a new discount website to clear excess stock, Deckers refused, referring to Clause 15 of its Terms and Conditions (T&Cs).

Up & Running argued that the T&Cs constituted an unlawful agreement and sought damages and an injunction requiring supply to resume. CAT found that Deckers had infringed the Chapter I Prohibition through an Online Sales Restriction and a Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) Restriction, awarding damages but refusing an injunction.

Tuesday 3 February 2026

British Medical Association (Appellant/Claimant) v General Medical Council (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court granting permission to bring a judicial review claim and dismissed the judicial review claim following a rolled up hearing.

The  British Medical Association  challenged by way of judicial review two decisions of the General Medical Council in its new role as regulator of the associate professions: the use of the term “medical professionals” as a collective descriptor to refer to doctors and associates; and the decision to produce a single set of guidance on professional standards, Good Medical Practice which applies to both doctors and members of the associate professions.

Wednesday 4 – Thursday 5 February 2026

Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors (Appellants/Claimants) v Okunola (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 November 2024 the Appellants appeal the decision of the High Court dated 18 October 2024 dismissing the application for a protective injunction on the basis there was no jurisdiction to make the order.

The Claimants sought an injunction by which the Defendant would be prohibited from (i) “publishing any message to or about the Claimants’ lawyers, or any person acting for, on behalf, or at the instruction of the Claimants’ lawyers which abuses, belittles, demeans, or insults any such person”; and (ii) “using profane or otherwise grossly offensive language or imagery in communications address to the Claimants’ lawyers, or in which they were copied”.

In decision dated 18 October 2024, the application was dismissed on the basis that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order sought.

Wednesday 4 February 2026

FXS (A minor proceeding by his litigation friend JLM) (Respondent/Claimant) v Mulberry Bush Org Ltd (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 27 November 2024, the Appellant appeals paragraphs 1, 3,5, 6, of an order of the High Court dated 13 November 2024.

Regarding wide ranging allegations of negligence arising out of the Claimant’s care at the Defendant’s residential school. The High Court accepted that the Claimant had been subjected to battery and false imprisonment on limited occasions during his residence at the School and awarded damages, which included an uplift for aggravated damages.

The Appellant contends that the awards of aggravated damages were wrong in principle; alternatively that they were excessive.

Thursday 5 February 2026

(1) Amazon.com, Inc.& ors (Applicants/Defendants) v Stephan (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

(2) Amazon.com, Inc & ors v Hammond (Applicants/Defendants) v Hammond (Respondent/Claimant)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 30 October 2025 the Applicants apply for permission appeal the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 24 July 2025 to certify the collective proceedings brought by the Respondent as class representative on an opt-out basis.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 4 November 2025 the Applicants apply for permission appeal the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 24 July 2025 to certify the collective proceedings brought by the Respondent as class representative on an opt-out basis.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 24 July 2025 concerns two collective proceedings applications against Amazon, brought by Respondent 1 on behalf of UK-based third-party seller and Respondent 2 on behalf of UK consumers. They allege that Amazon abused its dominant position through practices such as self-preferencing in the Buy Box, favouring its own fulfilment service (FBA), and restricting access to Prime.

The Tribunal granted both applications as opt-out collective proceedings. It found the claims suitable for certification. The Tribunal rejected Amazon’s arguments about internal class conflicts and ruled that opt-out proceedings were appropriate given the size and nature of the classes.

Thursday 5 February 2026

Logix Aero Ireland Lt (Appellants) v Siam Aero Repair Co Ltd (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 June 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court, delivered on 25 May following hearing on the 1 May.

This case arises from a cross‑border aircraft engine deal that collapsed due to a sophisticated email fraud. Logix Aero Ireland Limited agreed to buy two aircraft engines from Siam Aero Repair Company Limited, and the parties signed a Letter of Intent in July 2024, intending to finalise terms in later Sale and Purchase Agreements.

From 29 July 2024, a fraudster infiltrated their communications using spoofed email domains, causing each party to believe they were communicating with the other. Logix transferred USD 824,900 to the fraudster’s Vietnamese bank account, and Siam Aero, having received no payment, refused to release the engines.

 Logix brought proceedings seeking declarations of ownership, delivery up of the engines, damages for breach of the confidentiality clause in the Letter of Intent, and in the alternative, enforcement of the Sale and Purchase Agreements based on the fraudster’s alleged “apparent authority” to act for Siam Aero.

The High Court struck out the claim, finding it had no real prospect of success and awarded indemnity costs against Logix.

Thursday 5 February 2026

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

The Appellant appeals the determination of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, promulgated on 17 October dismissing appeal from claims for asylum and on Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) grounds.

The appellant, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, entered the United Kingdom as a visitor in February 2020 with leave until 31 July 2020 and claimed asylum on 29 April 2020, which the Secretary of State for the Home Department refused. While the appeal before the First‑tier Tribunal was pending, new matters relating to changes in medical and family circumstances were raised.

The First‑tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, but permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted on the basis that the First‑tier Tribunal may have erred in assessing “intense suffering” under Article 3 ECHR.

The Upper Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal.

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)