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 09 June 2026

Geeks Ltd (Respondent/Claimant) v Watts (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 11 March 2025 the Appellant appeals an order of the County Court dated 25 February 2025, dismissing the appeal against the order of DDJ Hope dated 3 August 2023.

The parties entered an employment contract on 18 March 2019, under which the claimant provided IT services through its staff, including developers and technicians. The contract included training fee clawback provisions requiring repayment for purported “training” costs.

The defendant resigned on 12 November 2019. The claimant sought £8,108 under the clawback provisions. The defendant argued these provisions were an unenforceable restraint of trade.

At trial on 3 August 2023, DDJ Hope held for the claimant. On appeal, the defendant argued the decision conflicted with House of Lords authority. HHJ Evans-Gordon dismissed the appeal.

Tuesday 09 – Wednesday 10 June 2026

The King (on the application of BUJ, a protected party, by his father and litigation friend, MNO) (Appellant/Claimant) v London Borough of Bromley (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the order of the High Court dated 29 January 2026 by which dismissed a judicial review claim following a rolled up hearing.

The Appellant sought judicial review of the Respondent’s decision to close the Poverest Centre, one of two adult education centres in Bromley, which offered courses including for adults with learning difficulties and disabilities.

Tuesday 09 June 2026

(1) O’Hanlon v Information Commissioner and another (external link)

(2) O’Hanlon v Information Commissioner and another

(1) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 23 May 2025 the Information Commissioner appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), dated 6 March 2025 remitting the case to a freshly constituted panel of the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing.

Environmental information was requested from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regarding demolition works, framed broadly as “any documents or correspondence” and listing 11 items.

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) partly upheld the Information Commissioner’s decision, finding some information exempt or not held. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal (UT) held the FTT erred in limiting the request to the 11 items, as the opening wording broadened its scope. This error was immaterial for some documents.

However, the UT found a material error regarding notification of contravention letters to Amark, which were held by the time of HSE’s reconsideration. The FTT failed to apply the public interest test, so the matter was remitted to a fresh FTT panel to reconsider disclosure as in August 2021.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 28 May 2025 the Health and Safety Executive appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), dated 6 March 2025 remitting the case to a freshly constituted panel of the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing.

Tuesday 09 – Wednesday 10 June 2026

Weis (Appellant) v Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 28 August 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal dated 24 July 2025 dismissing the claim for judicial review.

The Appellant challenged £140 million in loans from the Respondent to Renaker Group, alleging they were unlawful subsidies not made on commercial terms.

The Tribunal found the Respondent had followed a thorough, rational approval process and that the loans reflected market terms, conferring no undue economic advantage. It rejected claims of procedural unfairness and breach of candour, and dismissed the appeal.

Wednesday 10 June 2026

FMC Trading (sole proprietorship) (Appellant/Defendant) v MA Fastmove Limited (Respondent/Claimant)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 15 September 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court delivered on 14 November 2024.

Fastmove, a UK financial services firm, entered into a 2022 agreement with Billpay and FMC Trading to transport, convert, and remit large sums of cash. After sending £35 million, a shortfall of $1.9 million arose. Fastmove sought summary judgment for breach of contract and trust.

Regarding BIllpay, summary judgment granted for breach of contract and trust; no credible defence. FCM Trading was held jointly liable under the contract despite a limited role; summary judgment granted for breach of contract only.

Wednesday 10 June 2026

Burger (Appellant) v J D Wetherspoon PLC (Respondent) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 10 June 2025 the Appellant appeals an order of the High Court dated 23 May 2025.

The claimant was assaulted on 5 August 2018 by security guards employed by Risk Solutions, engaged by the Respondent.

The Appellant obtained default judgment against Risk Solutions and succeeded at trial, with the Recorder finding the Respondent vicariously liable and awarding £188,698.24.

On appeal, the High Court overturned the finding of vicarious liability, holding the security guards were independent contractors and the relationship was not akin to employment. The appeal was allowed on liability but dismissed as to damages.

Wednesday 10 June 2026

GHL (Eagle Wharf Road) Ltd (Appellant/Defendant) v Holborn Studios Limited and others (Respondents/Claimants)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 8 August 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court dated 18 July 2025 allowing the claim, quashing the grant of planning permission and making a cost order.

Statutory review of planning permission for redevelopment of Holborn Studios in Hackney. Holborn Studios challenged the decision, arguing the scheme failed to adequately “reprovide” its cultural facility.

The claim succeeded on one ground: the Inspector’s finding on reprovision was irrational and inadequately reasoned, given the lack of enforceable safeguards for continued cultural use. Other grounds were rejected, and the permission was quashed.

Thursday 11 June 2026

McGivern (Appellant/Defendant) v MBR Acres Limited and others (Respondents/Claimants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 22 August 2025, the Defendant appeals against an order made by the High Court on 29 August 2025 dismissing the Defendant’s appeal against a costs judge’s decision.

The Appellant, a legally aided solicitor, challenged a ruling that indemnity costs in committal proceedings are limited to legal aid rates, even where those are lower than the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) own assessment.

After successfully defending a contempt application, she was awarded indemnity costs. However, her £120,292 bill was reduced to £20,673, and she was ordered to pay the respondents’ assessment costs.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, and rejected arguments that the LAA’s assessment was binding or that legal aid could be revoked to recover higher rates and refused a costs capping order.

Thursday 11 June 2026

H (A Child) (external link)

The Children’s Guardian seeks permission to appeal a decision of Recorder Anderson (29 May 2026) granting the Local Authority an Interim Care Order with removal to foster care.

Thursday 11 June 2026

Chugh (Appellant) v Chugh (Respondent) (external link)

Issue: Challenge to decision recognising the validity of an Indian divorce.

By appellant’s notice filed on 25 March 2025 the Appellant appeals an order of the High Court dated 4 March 2025 which recognised the validity of an Indian divorce.

The parties married in India in 2010 and have two children. The wife moved to the UK in 2021 and later petitioned for divorce in England, obtaining decree nisi in December 2021. Meanwhile, the husband had issued divorce proceedings in India in July 2021 without informing the wife and obtained a divorce in September 2022. The wife was not clearly served and only learned key details at trial.

The judge held that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the wife and that the Indian divorce was valid and should be recognised. He stayed the wife’s English divorce and financial remedy proceedings.

Thursday 11 June 2026

Houssein and others (Appellants/Claimants) v London Credit Limited and others (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 12 January 2026 the Appellants appeal an order of the High Court dated 23 October 2025.

Following a trial judgment dated 12 June 2023, both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal overturned key aspects, including the award of 1% monthly default interest and the issue-based costs order, and held that the judge was wrong to find the default interest rate to be a penalty.

The case was remitted to the judge to reconsider costs and the penalty issue, and to allow the First Respondent to pursue a counterclaim for unpaid sums.

The remitted trial concerned whether the default interest rate was a penalty, if so, whether statutory interest was still recoverable, whether the First Respondent’s conduct disentitled it to interest, and whether the Appellants had a set-off against sums owed.

Thursday 11 June 2026

Rowntree (Appellant) v Performing Right Society Limited and Another (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 5 November 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, dated 27 August 2025, which struck out and summarily dismissed a Costs Capping Order (CPO) Application, and refused certification.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal refused to certify proposed collective proceedings brought by the Appellant against the Performing Right Society (PRS) and PRS for Music. The claim alleged that PRS’s policy of distributing “black box” royalties, unmatched royalties resulting from incomplete or inaccurate data, on a pro rata basis between writers and publishers was unfair and amounted to an abuse of dominance.

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)