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. 

Monday 27 – Thursday 30 April 2026

Titanium Capital Investments Limited and Another (Respondents/Claimants) v Hughes and Others (Appellants/Defendants)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 8 July 2025 the Appellants appeal an order of the Business and Property Courts, dated 18 June 2025.

The First Appellant and the First Respondent were partners in a business selling lateral flow tests imported from China during the Covid‑19 pandemic. Their relationship deteriorated and the partnership was dissolved in June 2021.

The Respondent alleged that the Appellant continued the partnership business post‑dissolution and sought an account of profits. The Respondent’s company, Titanium, also claimed breach of the shareholder agreement.

The Appellant counterclaimed that the Respondent diverted sales opportunities and made secret profits, and otherwise breached fiduciary duties, advancing an unlawful conspiracy counterclaim.

The Judge held that the Appellant must account for profits from post‑dissolution sales, and that his failure to do so breached fiduciary duties; dismissed Titanium’s shareholder agreement claim; and ordered the Respondent to account for benefits derived from his undisclosed interest in Newfoundland. The Respondent’s conspiracy claim succeeded, while the Appellant’s conspiracy counterclaim failed. The knowing receipt claim was deferred to a second trial.

Tuesday 28 – Wednesday 29 April 2026

The King on the application of Ammori (Claimant/Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Defendant)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 March 2026 and sealed on 13 March 2026 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, dated 13 February 2026.

The Claimant was co‑founder of Palestine Action, and sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision of 20 June 2025 to proscribe Palestine Action under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The High Court allowed the Claimant’s claim for judicial review and quashed the Defendant’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

Lower Court Judgment

Appellant’s Skeleton Argument

Appellant’s Supplementary Skeleton Argument

Respondent’s Skeleton Argument

Respondent’s Reply to Supplementary Skeleton Argument

Tuesday 28 – Wednesday 29 April 2026

(1)Microsoft Corporation and Ors (Appellants/Defendants) v JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) (Respondents/Claimants)

(2)Microsoft Corporation and others (Appellants/Defendants) v JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) (Respondents/Claimants)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 7 July 2025 the Appellants appeal the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), dated 23 May 2025.

The Claimant was a vendor of pre‑owned Microsoft software licences. It alleges that, from around 2011, Microsoft shifted customers to its subscription service, Microsoft 365, and unlawfully restricted the supply of pre‑owned licences by requiring customers, in return for discounts, to surrender or retain unused perpetual licences.

The Defendants argued that the CAT lacked jurisdiction insofar as the claim raised disputed copyright issues, which they said should be determined by the High Court. The CAT rejected that argument, holding that it has jurisdiction to determine all aspects of the competition law claim, including copyright disputes insofar as they arise in that context.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 10 December 2025 the Appellants appeal a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)) dated 12 November 2025.

The CAT’s  judgment resolved two preliminary copyright issues in ValueLicensing’s favour, holding that EU copyright exhaustion of the Software Directive operates automatically and permits the subdivision and resale of perpetual Microsoft Windows and Office licences acquired under volume Enterprise Agreements. It also held that exhaustion extends beyond the software itself to all associated components, including interfaces, manuals, fonts and help files, when first lawfully sold and downloaded as part of the product’s intended use.

(1) Appellants’ Skeleton Argument

(2) Appellants’ Skeleton Argument

(1) Respondents’ Skeleton Argument

(2) Respondents’ Skeleton Argument

Tuesday 28 – Wednesday 29 April 2026

Sintes (Respondent/Claimant) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Appellant/ Defendant)

By appellant’s notice filed on 28 August 2025 and sealed 1 September 2025 the Appellant appeals the order dated 30 July 2025, in which the court found the London Borough of Tower Hamlets liable in negligence and public nuisance for injuries sustained by the claimant.

The claimant tripped on scaffolding poles left on the public footpath at Whitechapel Market by an unidentified market trader.

The court held that the defendant, as the street-trading licensing authority, owed a duty of care to highway users and had assumed responsibility for the market’s safe operation. The defendant was found to have breached this duty by failing to inspect and remove the obstruction.

Tuesday 28 April 2026

Alesayi (Respondent) v Bank Audi SAL (Appellant)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 2 June 2025, the Appellant appeals against orders made by High Court dated 30 April 2025 and 13 May 2025 dismissing the Appellant’s jurisdiction application and ordering to pay the Respondent’s costs of that application.

The Respondent sued Bank Audi in England for transfer of US$24 million under a consumer contract. The court held that the relevant contract arose in 2016, not 1994, when new terms were signed, creating a fresh contractual relationship. As there was a good arguable case that the Respondent was UK‑domiciled and the bank was directing activities to the UK at that time, the consumer jurisdiction gateway applied, and the bank’s jurisdiction challenge failed.

Tuesday 28 April 2026

Bargain Busting Limited (Appellant) v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd and others (Respondents)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 June 2025, the Appellant, Bargain Busting Ltd, appeals a judgment of the High Court, handed down on 21 May 2025.

The case concerns a trademark dispute over the use of the word “CRYSTAL” in relation to vaping products. Bargain Busting Ltd (BB) owns or has applied for several marks. SKE, a Chinese vape manufacturer, claims prior unregistered rights in “CRYSTAL” and alleges bad faith on BB’s part.

In December 2024, BB sent infringement threat letters to 11 distributors and retailers of SKE’s products, notwithstanding a prior agreement to mediate. SKE applied for an interim injunction.

The Court held that the letters constituted threats of infringement proceedings and noted BB’s refusal to give undertakings not to make further threats, despite having no current intention to sue the remaining recipients. An interim injunction was granted preventing BB from making further threats to SKE’s distributors or retailers.

Tuesday 28 – Thursday 30 April 2026

The Executors of Mrs Leslie Vivienne Elborne and others (Respondents) v HMRC (Appellants)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 June 2025 the Appellants appeal a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber), delivered on 17 February 2025.

This appeal and cross‑appeal concerned the inheritance tax treatment of a “home loan scheme” entered into by Mrs Leslie Vivienne Elborne. In 2003 she sold her home to trustees of a life settlement trust, received a promissory note in return, assigned the note to a family trust, and continued to occupy the property until her death in 2011.

The First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the executors’ appeal, but rejected HMRC’s arguments.

The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the executors’ appeal, holding that the note was not a “debt incurred by” Mrs Elborne. It dismissed HMRC’s cross‑appeal on all grounds. The UT set aside and remade the FTT’s decision accordingly.

Wednesday 29 – Thursday 30 April 2026

(1) Faraj (Appellant) v Ahmad and another (Respondents)

(2) Faraj (Appellant) v Ahmad and IIB Group Holdings WLL (Respondents)

(3) Faraj (Appellant) v Ahmad and IIB Group Holdings WLL (Respondents)

(1-3) The proceedings arose from financial remedy claims brought by the Appellant against the First Respondent in October 2019. IIB is a Bahraini‑incorporated company conducting international banking business, of which the First Respondent is a director and majority shareholder.

The Appellant issued a divorce petition on 12 October 2020, served on 19 October 2020. The Respondent conceded English jurisdiction, and the marriage was dissolved in August 2021.

IIB, a company of which the Respondent is a director and majority shareholder, was joined to the proceedings by order of 3 December 2021 in relation to two discrete issues only: whether a  2019 Forward Acquisition of Property Agreement concerning the former matrimonial home was a sham, and whether shares held under IIB’s Employee Share Ownership Programme were owned by, or available to, the Respondent. Both claims were dismissed.

Wednesday 29 – Thursday 30 April 2026

(1) Kalidasan (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondents)

(2) Kaliyamoorthy (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondents)

(3) Periyasamy (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondents)

(4) Muthusamy (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondents)

(1) The Appellant appeals the decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 25 March 2025 refusing permission to apply for judicial review following an oral hearing.

The Appellant entered the UK as a student but was unable to complete payment of his tuition fees after being defrauded by an employee of his visa agent. The university refused late payment. Before his student leave expired, he applied for FLR(HRO). While that application was pending, he secured sponsorship and applied to switch to Skilled Worker leave. Despite providing evidence of the fraud, the application was refused on 6 August 2024 for failure to meet mandatory switching requirements.

The UT Judge held that the grounds were unarguable: the applicant had not completed his course of study, a mandatory validity requirement.

(2) The Appellant appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) dated 9 May refusing permission to apply for judicial review following an oral hearing.

The Appellant entered the UK as a student in January 2023. His leave was curtailed in September 2023 for failure to enrol and pay course fees. He applied to switch to Skilled Worker leave after securing a sponsor. The SSHD issued a letter in September 2024 stating that the student switching requirements were not met.

The UT held that the decision was neither procedurally unfair nor irrational.

(3) The Appellant appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 17 June 2025 refusing permission to apply for judicial review following an oral hearing.

The applicant sought to challenge the rejection of his Skilled Worker application dated 8 December 2024 as invalid. He entered the UK as a student in June 2022. His sponsorship was withdrawn in June 2023 and his leave curtailed in January 2024. He claimed asylum in February 2024 but failed to attend his asylum interview, leading to withdrawal of the claim.

He applied for Skilled Worker leave in June 2024. After an initial defective minded‑to‑reject notification, a valid MTR was issued in November 2024 and representations were made.

The UT refused permission, holding that the refusal decision was not arguably unlawful on public law grounds.

(4) The Appellant appeals a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) dated 13 June 2025, refusing permission to apply for judicial review following an oral hearing.

The Appellant entered the UK as a student in 2022 but was unable to pay the outstanding tuition fees, leading to withdrawal of his CAS on 15 February 2023 and curtailment of his leave.

The UT held that the Immigration Rules were lawfully applied.

Thursday 30 April 2026

Castleton (Appellant/Claimant) and Post Office Limited and another (Respondent/Defendant)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 13 February 2026 the Appellant appeals a case management order of the High Court, dated 23 January 2026, which directed a split trial for the determination of the preliminary issues set out in the Schedule to the order under appeal.

The Appellant was a sub‑postmaster affected by the Horizon scandal. In January 2007, Post Office Limited (“POL”) obtained judgment against him which resulted in a judgment debt of £309,807 and his subsequent bankruptcy, annulled in January 2023.

Between 2016 and 2019, he was one of 555 claimants in the Bates v Post Office group litigation, which was settled by a settlement deed before judgment in the Horizon Issues Trial.

On 14 March 2025, he issued proceedings against POL and Fujitsu alleging an unlawful means conspiracy to abuse the court process by dishonestly withholding evidence about Horizon’s unreliability. He also seeks to rescind or avoid the settlement deed on grounds of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation and/or sharp practice.

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)