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 10 March 2026

O’Brien (Appellant/Claimant) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens (Respondent/Defendant)

The Appellant appeals the decision of the Administrative Court dated 21 February 2025 which dismissed the application for judicial review brought by the Claimant.

The Appellant’s sister died in May 2020. In March 2023 the Assistant Coroner for Liverpool concluded that there was no causative link between police conduct and her death and that the inquest did not require a jury. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision, arguing that police failures relating to a restraining order could have contributed to the circumstances leading to the death.

In March 2023, the Assistant Coroner issued a Decision Notice concluding that no jury was required because the death did not result from an act or omission of police officers. In May 2023, the Claimant brought judicial review proceedings challenging that decision.

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 March 2026

RTM (Respondent/Claimant) v Bonne Terre Limited and another (Appellants/Defendants)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 20 March 2025, the Appellants appeal the decision the King’s Bench Division, Media & Communications List, dated 23 January 2025 allowing the claim, directing a remedies hearing, and making an interim costs order.

The Claimant, a recovering online gambling addict, previously gambled compulsively on various platforms, predominantly those operated by Sky Betting and Gaming (SBG). He brought a privacy claim alleging that SBG unlawfully gathered and used extensive data about his gambling behaviour through profiling and personalised marketing that fuelled his addiction, causing him harm and distress. SBG denied wrongdoing, arguing that the Claimant had consented to the data practices.

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 March 2026

(1) Google LLC (Appellants/Defendants) v Shorts International Ltd (Respondents/Claimants)

(2) Shorts International Ltd (Appellants) v Google LLC (Respondents)

(1)By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 January 2025, the Appellants, Google LLJ, cross-appeal a judgment from the High Court dated 31 October 2024 concerning its YouTube Shorts service.

The Claimant alleged that Google’s use of the word “shorts” infringed its trademarks and amounted to passing off, while Google argued that “shorts” was descriptive of short‑form content and that Shorts International Ltd’s (SIL) marks were invalid or unused.

The Judge found that “shorts” referred broadly to short‑form audiovisual content and that although most of SIL’s trademarks incorporating “shorts” were valid, they had low inherent distinctiveness and limited reputation in the UK. The Judge also held there was no passing off because Google’s signs did not misrepresent its service as originating from SIL.

Google argues that the judge wrongly upheld the validity of several SIL trademarks.

(2) By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 January 2025, the Appellants, Shorts International Ltd (SIL) appeals a judgment from the High Court dated 31 October 2024 concerning Google’s use of “shorts” for its YouTube Shorts service

The Claimant alleged that Google’s use of the word “shorts” infringed its trademarks and amounted to passing off, while Google argued that “shorts” was descriptive of short‑form content and that Shorts International Ltd’s (SIL) marks were invalid or unused.

The Judge found that “shorts” referred broadly to short‑form audiovisual content and that although most of SIL’s trademarks incorporating “shorts” were valid, they had low inherent distinctiveness and limited reputation in the UK. The Judge also held there was no passing off because Google’s signs did not misrepresent its service as originating from SIL. Consequently, SIL’s claims failed.

Lower Court Judgment

Google Skeleton Argument

Shorts International Skeleton Argument (1)

Shorts International Skeleton Argument (2)

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 March 2026

Ocean One Hundred Ltd (Appellants/Claimants) v New Forest National Park Authority (Respondents/Defendants)

By an Appellant’s Notice submitted on 27 May 2025 the Appellants appeal a decision of the High Court dated 16 April 2025, dismissing its judicial review challenge and made a costs order.

The underlying claim concerned the New Forest National Park Authority’s decision, notified on 7 November 2023, to revoke a 2008 certificate of lawfulness (CLEUD) for the Vernon Dene caravan site, on the basis that the original application contained false or withheld material information.

Tuesday 10 March 2026

MN (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

The Appellants appeals the Upper Tribunal’s (UT) decision of 17 December 2024, which dismissed the appeal against the First‑tier Tribunal’s (FTT) rejection of the Appellant’s asylum and protection claim.

The Appellant, a Vietnamese national, entered the UK lawfully on a business visa in 2014 but overstayed after it expired, later claiming asylum in April 2018. Although granted discretionary leave to remain until June 2024, he now claims he fears return because he was trafficked and risks being re‑trafficked.

The FTT accepted aspects of his account but held that he faced no ongoing risk. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s decision.

Wednesday 11 – Thursday 12 March 2026

HMRC (Appellants) v Colchester Institute Corporation (Respondents)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 March 2025 and issued on 14 March 2025, the Appellants appeal a decision in the Upper Tribunal (UT) dated 4 December 2024.

The appeal concerns whether grants received by Colchester Institute Corporation (CIC), a further education provider, constituted consideration for a taxable supply of educational or vocational services.

The First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) had allowed CIC’s appeal because it was bound by an earlier Upper Tribunal decision, CIC UT 2020, which had resolved the same “consideration issue” in CIC’s favour for similar grant‑funded activities. Although the Upper Tribunal was not strictly bound to follow its earlier decision, it would normally do so as a matter of judicial consistency.

In this appeal, HMRC accepted that they would not argue before the UT that CIC UT 2020 was wrongly decided, reserving that argument for an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which would not be bound by the UT’s earlier decision. HMRC therefore accepted that their position required the UT to dismiss the appeal.

Thursday 12 March 2026

Ramisa Nujhat Chowdhury (Appellant) v Sectary Of State for Home Department (Respondent)

The applicant, a Bangladeshi national born in 2004, applied to join her parents in the UK as their dependant after they were granted entry clearance as skilled workers. She was 19 at the time and was above the permitted dependant age. Her younger sibling’s application was granted.

Her application was refused on 3 August 2023 and the refusal was upheld on administrative review. The Home Office invited her to provide any exceptional or compassionate reasons.

Further evidence was submitted, and additional time was requested to file an expert report on the risks faced by a lone woman in Bangladesh. However, the Secretary of State refused the application before the final report was provided.

The Upper Tribunal Judge concluded that none of the four grounds of challenge were arguable, finding no unfairness in the decision‑making process and holding that the claim did not amount to a human‑rights claim.

Thursday 12 March 2026

Gould & anr (Appellants/Claimants) v Devon County Council (Respondent/Defendant)

The Appellants appeal a decision of the High Court on 24 January 2025, dismissing their judicial review of the closure of the North Devon Link Service, a drop‑in centre for adults with mental health difficulties.

Both Claimants had been long‑term, regular users of the service. They argued that the Respondent failed to take account of duties under the Care Act 2014 and a section of the National Health Service Act 2006 when deciding to close the service on 13 March 2024.

Permission was granted on all grounds in June 2024, Mr Justice Eyre ultimately held that the statutory provisions relied upon were material considerations but nonetheless dismissed the claim. The Applicants now seek permission to appeal that dismissal.

Thursday 12 March 2026

(1) Visa & ors (Applicants) v The Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants

(2) Mastercard Inc & ors (Applicants) v The Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants

(1) By an Appellant’s Notice submitted on 31 July 2025, Visa seeks permission to appeal the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s judgment of 27 June 2025. This held that Visa’s Default Interchange Fee Rule infringes Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The proceedings were brought by over 2,000 merchant claimants against Visa and Mastercard challenging the legality of Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs) under EU and UK competition law. The Tribunal found that the MIFs, acting as a non‑negotiable pricing “floor” in the Merchant Service Charge, restricted competition in the acquiring market. It rejected the defendants’ counterfactual models. It accepted the claimants’ “No‑MIFs Counterfactual,” under which settlement could occur without a default fee.

The Tribunal concluded that the Default Interchange Fee Rule infringed competition law for inter‑regional and commercial card transactions, emphasising that Visa and Mastercard’s services are indispensable to merchants and that the fees distort competition. Liability was therefore established.

(2) By an Appellant’s Notice submitted on 1 August 2025, Mastercard seeks permission to appeal the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s judgment of 27 June 2025 . This held that Visa’s Default Interchange Fee Rule infringes Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The proceedings were brought by over 2,000 merchant claimants against Visa and Mastercard challenging the legality of Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs) under EU and UK competition law. The Tribunal found that the MIFs, acting as a non‑negotiable pricing “floor” in the Merchant Service Charge, restricted competition in the acquiring market. It rejected the defendants’ counterfactual models. It accepted the claimants’ “No‑MIFs Counterfactual,” under which settlement could occur without a default fee.

The Tribunal concluded that the Default Interchange Fee Rule infringed competition law for inter‑regional and commercial card transactions, emphasising that Visa and Mastercard’s services are indispensable to merchants and that the fees distort competition. Liability was therefore established.

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)