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.

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

Tuesday 10th November 2026

The King on the application of Morris Homes Limited and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government (Respondent) (external link)

This is an by Morris Homes Limited against the dismissal of its judicial review challenge to a Planning Inspector’s refusal to discharge a planning obligation requiring carbon-offsetting contributions. The central issue is whether the obligation remains enforceable and serves a useful purpose despite the dissolution of the Zero Carbon Hub, which was intended to participate in approving how contributions were spent.

Tuesday 10th to Wednesday 11th November

Ms S Pal (Respondent) v Accenture (UK) Limited (Appellant) (external link)

This is an appeal by Accenture (UK) Limited against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) decision overturning an Employment Tribunal’s findings on unfair dismissal and disability discrimination involving an employee with endometriosis. The central issues are whether the Employment Tribunal was entitled to make a 100% Polkey reduction in compensation, on the basis that the employee would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed, and whether it correctly assessed her disability, the employer’s knowledge of it, and any connection between her condition and dismissal.

Tuesday 10th to Wednesday 11th November

Gould and Another (Respondents) v Esteban (Appellant) (external link)

This is an appeal concerning the interpretation and extent of an express vehicular right of way over land belonging to Cwm Tawe Farm, providing access to the neighbouring property, Cwm Tawe Villa. The central issue is whether the right of way, originally granted under a 1949 conveyance, extends to the north-western corner of the Villa, allowing vehicular access to parking spaces, or terminates near the property’s front door.

Tuesday 10th to Wednesday 11th November

Akester (Appellant) & Others v Department of Health and Social Care & Another (Respondent) (external link)

This appeal arises from claims brought by 127 care home workers who were dismissed for failing to comply with mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements. The central issue is whether the Government, through guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care, could be held liable for instructing, causing, inducing or knowingly assisting unlawful discrimination by care home employers under sections 111 and 112 of the Equality Act 2010.

Tuesday 10th November

H (Children) (external link)

This is a family appeal by against a case management decision in ongoing care proceedings. The central issues are whether the Family Court was correct to exclude a social worker’s assessment as inadmissible expert evidence and to conclude that the continued interim separation was no longer justified.

Wednesday 11th November

Dunn (Appellant) v Kazolides (Respondent) (external link)

This is an appeal arising from a joint venture to develop and sell seven villas in Cyprus, concerning the enforceability of a personal guarantee given by one of the joint venture partners, Mr Kazolides, to secure repayment of a loan advanced by Mr Dunn to the project company. The central issues are whether the guarantee was discharged by subsequent changes to the arrangements for selling the villas and deferring repayment of the loan, and whether the claim was statute-barred.

Wednesday 11th and Thursday 12th November

Getty Images (US) Inc and Others (Appellants) v Stability AI Ltd (Respondent) (external link)

This is an appeal by Getty Images and others against the High Court’s decision dismissing their claim for secondary copyright infringement arising from the development and distribution of Stability AI’s generative image model, Stable Diffusion. The central issue is whether an AI model trained using copyright-protected images can constitute an “infringing copy” under section 27 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, even where the model does not itself retain or reproduce the original images.

Lower court judgment

Appellant’s skeleton argument

Appellant’s skeleton argument (in reply to the Respondent’s notice)

Respondent’s skeleton argument

Intervener’s skeleton argument

Wednesday 11th November

Derwent Lodge Estates LTD (Respondent) v Signature Living Hotel LTD (in Administration) & ORS (Appellants) (external link)

This is an appeal concerning the principles governing relief from forfeiture under section 146(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925, brought by residential underlessees of apartments in a mixed-use building in Liverpool. The central issue is whether innocent underlessees of part of a property should be required to restore the freeholder to its original financial and contractual position following forfeiture of the head lease, or whether relief should be granted on more proportionate terms reflecting their limited interests in the property.

Wednesday 11th November

The King on the application of KM (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

This is an immigration and human rights appeal concerning the refusal of discretionary leave to remain to an individual formally recognised as a victim of modern slavery. The central issues are whether the Appellant was entitled to temporary residence under Article 14 of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking (ECAT), and whether the refusal of leave unlawfully interfered with his rights under Article 8 ECHR, giving rise to a potential claim for damages.

Thursday 12th November

FinCo International AG (Appellant) v Integra Petrochemicals Europe AG (Respondent) (external link)

This is an appeal by FinCo International AG arising from a contract with Integra Petrochemicals Europe AG for the sale and delivery of a cargo of petrochemicals, concerning the interpretation of contractual delivery dates following a variation from DES (Delivered Ex Ship) to CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) terms. The central issue is whether the agreed delivery window remained a binding obligation requiring physical delivery by 24 November 2023, or became merely indicative following the variation. FinCo purported to terminate the contract after the nominated vessel failed to arrive within the agreed period, but the High Court held that the variation to CIF terms meant the delivery dates were indicative only and that Integra had complied with its contractual obligations.

Thursday 12th November

C & M Wealth International Limited (Appellant) v Smith (Respondent) (external link)

This appeal concerns the enforceability of a personal guarantee given by Mr Smith in respect of a loan made to Park Hall Huyton Ltd by Elysium Bridging Ltd (EB). The judge dismissed the claimant’s claim under the guarantee, finding that it was void for lack of consideration because EB had advanced the loan as principal rather than as the claimant’s agent, and the claimant had not established that it had procured the loan. The claimant challenges the judge’s interpretation of the contractual documents and his findings on the relationship between EB and the claimant, arguing that EB acted as its agent or that it procured the loan, thereby providing sufficient consideration to make the guarantee enforceable.

Thursday 12th November

The King on the application of Al-Kaissy & Ors (Appellants) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondents) (external link)

This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision allowing a judicial review challenge to the refusal of applications by a Jordanian family to extend their leave to remain as representatives of an overseas business and dependants. The central issue is whether serious misconduct by an applicant’s legal representative can render an otherwise lawful immigration decision procedurally unfair and justify its being quashed.

Thursday 12th November

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

This appeal concerns whether an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim raised in correspondence accompanying an application under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) constitutes a “new matter” under Regulation 9(6) of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, requiring the Secretary of State’s consent before it can be considered on 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)