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 17 February 2026

Titchfield Festival Theatre Limited (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 7 May 2025 the Appellant appeals under section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a decision of the First Respondent’s Inspector to uphold an Enforcement Notice.

Titchfield Festival Theatre, “TFT” (a not‑for‑profit community and youth theatre) occupies a site in Fareham divided into three areas: A, B, and C. The local authority issued an Enforcement Notice for Areas B and C, alleging an unlawful material change of use to theatre use and requiring theatre activities there to stop.

TFT appealed, but the Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal.

Wednesday 18 February 2026

The King on the application of WildFish (Appellant/Claimant) v Buckinghamshire Council (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 10 December 2025, WildFish, appeals the decision of the High Court dated 20 November 2025 dismissing the claim for judicial review and making a costs order.

Wildfish, an environmental charity, challenged Buckinghamshire Council’s decision of 4 March 2025 to approve reserved matters and discharge certain conditions relating to an outline planning permission for a residential development at Maids Moreton. The claim was dismissed on all grounds.

Wednesday 18 – Thursday 19 February 2026

Monford Management Limited (The Owners of the Vessel “KIVELI”) (Appellant) v Afina Navigation Limited (The Owners of the Vessel “AFINA I”) (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025 the Appellant, Monford Management Ltd, appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 16 May 2025 following trial. On 13 March 2021, the bulk carriers KIVELI and AFINA I collided off the south coast of Greece. KIVELI turned to port while AFINA I turned to starboard. KIVELI’s bow embedded in AFINA I’s cargo hold, causing significant flooding. No casualties occurred.

Both parties brought claims against each other, and the court was asked to determine liability. The court considered three central issues: whether the encounter was head‑on or crossing, whether either vessel breached the International Collision Regulations (COLREGs), and how liability should be apportioned. It held that from 05:39 the vessels were on nearly reciprocal courses, making this a head‑on situation to which Rule 14 applied, requiring both to turn to starboard.

KIVELI was found to have caused the collision through multiple failures. It breached numerous COLREGs, including Rules 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 17, 34, and 36. AFINA I’s conduct was largely appropriate: it turned to starboard, but too late, amounting to a breach of Rule 8. The court concluded that KIVELI’s navigational errors were the primary cause of the collision and apportioned liability at 80% to KIVELI and 20% to AFINA I.

Thursday 19 February 2026

H (Children) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 4 September Appellant appeals the Final Care Orders dated 24 March 2025 from the Lincoln Family Court.

The Judge made final care orders for three children, placing them in the local authority’s care with plans for long‑term foster placements. After the final hearing, it emerged that a key witness was an educational psychologist though had been obtaining instructions as a clinical psychologist. National press reports stated that he had been suspended for six months by his regulator.

The Appellant appeals the Judge’s decision as it relied heavily on the psychologist’s  assessment of the mother and children, which he was not qualified to undertake.

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)