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 06 October 2026

Município de Mariana & Others (Respondents) v BHP Group (UK) Ltd and BHP Group Limited (Appellants) (external link)

These proceedings arise from claims brought in England following the Fundão Dam collapse in Brazil in 2015. Mrs Justice O’Farrell held the Appellants strictly liable under Brazilian Environmental Law, alternatively liable in fault under Civil Code Art 186, and rejected limitation defences. A separate consequentials judgment awarded pre‑judgment interest on costs to the Respondents.

Tuesday 06 – Wednesday 07 October 2026

The King on application of CKT and DGT by his mother and litigation friend CKT (Appellants) v Twyford Church of England Academies Trust and Another (Respondents) (external link)

Anonymity was granted to CKT and DGT by order of Mr Justice Carver. The Appellants appeal the decision of Mr Justice Bourne, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 22 September 2025. The judge dismissed the applications for judicial review in both the Trust Claim and the Office of the School Adjudicator Claim and made an order for costs.

The Appellants sought judicial review of the Respondents’ decision to refuse DGT a secondary school place due to their family worshipping at a church linked to their ethnic background and culture rather than a Church of England church. The Appellants made two linked claims for judicial review concerning faith-based oversubscription criteria within the admissions arrangements of Twyford Church of England High School.

Tuesday 06 October 2026

The King on the Application of Treal Care UK Limited (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Simon Tinkler, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, dated 23 July 2025, by which he granted the Respondent’s claim for judicial review and quashed the Appellant’s decision of 1 October 2024 and made a costs order in favour of the Respondent.

The Respondent is a company who supplies care staff to the NHS, Local Authorities and clinical care groups. They sought judicial review of the decision dated 1 October 2024 to revoke the sponsor licence from the Appellant to issue Certificates of Sponsorship to skilled migrants to work for it.

Tuesday 06 – Wednesday 07 October 2026

Blasket Renewable Investments LLC (Appellant) v The Kingdom of Spain (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of HHJ Pelling KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 10 November 2025. This appeal concerns an arbitration award of €29.3 million against the Respondent resulting from an application in the Commercial Court, and whether the ICSID award is assignable.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant and Respondent

Lower Court Judgment (external link)

Tuesday 06 October 2026

Levi (Appellant) v Levi (Respondent) (external link)

The issue pertains to whether a financial remedy order should be set aside or overturned on appeal due to alleged material non‑disclosure, misleading evidence, and procedural irregularity affecting the fairness of the original decision.

This case arises from financial remedy proceedings following the divorce of the parties. At first instance, District Judge Jenkins made a financial remedy order in February 2023, rejecting the wife’s allegations that the husband had hidden substantial assets. The wife later sought permission to appeal out of time, relying in part on additional material which she claimed demonstrated non‑disclosure by the husband. Her application was partly allowed: several grounds proceeded as an appeal and others as a deemed application to set aside the original order. The combined appeal/set‑aside was heard by HHJ Oliver in 2025.

Tuesday 06 October – Thursday 08 October 2026

The King on the application of Thomas Holdings Limited and Others (Appellants) v Commissioner for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellants appeal the decision of Mrs Justice Eady DBE, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 8 July 2025, by which she dismissed the Appellant’s claims and ordered them to pay the Respondent’s costs.

The Appellants sought judicial review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse to apply extra-statutory concessions in respect of assessments of Amusement Machine Licence Duty relating to a category of machines operated by the Claimants in amusement arcades and bingo halls.

Wednesday 07 October 2026

Bevan (Appellant) v Ministry of Defence (Respondent) (external link)

This case pertains to a personal injury claim for Noise Induced Hearing Loss, tinnitus and associated psychological injuries arising from the Appellant’s work on the Respondent’s Ajax Armoured Vehicle Programme. The Appellant appeals the order of HHJ Bird, sitting as a High Court Judge, in the KBD Manchester District Registry. Judgment dated 14 May 2025.

Between 2017 and 2020 the Appellant, then a serving soldier, was negligently exposed to dangerous and unsafe levels of noise by the Defendant. Breach of duty was admitted by the Respondent, but causation and quantum remained in issue. The Appellant was regularly exposed to engine noise, a pulse jet air system, and alarms.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant and Respondent

Lower Court Judgment (external link)

Wednesday 07 – Thursday 08 October 2026

PJSC VTB Bank (Appellant) v HM Treasury (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mrs Justice Collins Rice DBE CB, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 19 December 2025, by which she dismissed the claim for review, pursuant to s.38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and made an order as to costs at an oral hearing.

The Appellant is Russia’s second largest bank, majority-owned by the Russian government. They were placed under sanctions by the UK Government (and internationally) in February 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The sanctions extended to the Appellant’s UK subsidiary VTB Capital Plc (the Interested Party) and led to the Interested Party becoming insolvent. The Appellant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which manages and make decisions regarding the UK sanctions regime and are a part of HM Treasury.

Wednesday 07 – Thursday 08 October 2026

Save Wimbledon Park Ltd (Appellant) v The Mayor of London (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Saini J dated 21 July 2025 dismissing the claim for judicial review and making a costs order and an order limiting recoverable costs.

This appeal concerns a judicial review challenge to the Mayor of London’s decision to grant planning permission for the expansion of the Wimbledon Championships onto the Wimbledon Park Golf Course, a site designated as Metropolitan Open Land. Save Wimbledon Park Ltd argued that the Mayor acted unlawfully by failing to properly consider legal constraints on the land. Namely, a statutory trust requiring public recreational use and restrictive covenants prohibiting built development.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant, Respondent 1 and Respondent 2/Interested Party

Lower Court Judgment (external link)

Wednesday 07 October

Bunting (Appellant) v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith and Judge Nicolas Aleksander sitting in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) dated 19 March 2025.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of s253(3) Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. In summary, s253(3) provides that a taxpayer who has made a loan to a trader may claim an allowable loss if the outstanding principal of the loan has become irrecoverable, and certain other requirements have been met. The issue is whether a claim can be made under s253(3) in circumstances where a loan was released in consideration for the issue of ordinary shares prior to the claim being made.

Thursday 08 October

James (Appellant) v General Medical Council (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mrs Justice Hill, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 31 July 2025, by which she decided to remit paragraph 1a of the Allegation back to the fitness to practice proceedings for a fresh hearing.

The Appellant is a doctor. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal found that the Appellant had slapped a patient in the face in 2019 whilst providing anaesthetic care. The Appellant appealed against the Respondent’s decision, dated 18 July 2024, of the Medical Practitioner Tribunal which imposed a three-month suspension without review.

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)