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 11 – Tuesday 12 and Thursday 14 May 2026

Republic of India (Appellant/Defendant) v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (Respondent/Claimant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 20 October 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, delivered on 20 June 2025 following trial and the pursuant order being made on 29 September 2025.

The dispute arose out of a failed aluminium and bauxite project in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh involving the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) and the Government of India. In 2007, RAKIA signed an agreement with the state government which led to the creation of a joint venture company, ANRAK Aluminium Ltd. RAKIA.

In 2008, ANRAK entered into an agreement with a state-owned mining company to secure a supply of bauxite. However, the project faced strong opposition due to environmental concerns, tribal land issues, and political pressure. In 2016, the state government cancelled the bauxite supply agreement, bringing the project to an end.

RAKIA then started international arbitration against India under the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between India and the UAE, seeking USD 273 million in compensation.

The key issue was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT. The High Court overturned the tribunal’s decision.

Tuesday 12 – Wednesday 13 May 2026

Aina Khan Law Ltd (Respondent/Claimant) v Legal Ombudsman (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, dated 29 May 2025.

The issue arose after a former client complained about legal fees following her divorce proceedings. The firm had acted for her in late 2020, but later developed concerns about her welfare, and a report concluded that she lacked capacity.

The client complained about the fees charged and later referred the matter to the Legal Ombudsman. After initially rejecting the complaint, the Ombudsman reviewed the case and concluded that the firm had not properly assessed the client’s capacity. The Ombudsman ordered the firm to repay part of its fees and compensation.

The firm challenged that decision by judicial review. The High Court overturned the Ombudsman’s finding.

Wednesday 13 – Thursday 14 May 2026

Crabb and others (Appellants/Claimants) v TUI Airways Limited (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Appellants appeal the decision of the High Court dated 11 October 2024 in which the Appellants/Claimants’ claims against the Respondent were dismissed.

The Appellants are pilots employed by the Respondent who are unable to fly due to illness and therefore receive payments under an income protection scheme. They began their absence under a Permanent Health Insurance (PHI) scheme but were later moved to a less favourable Personal Income Protection (PIP) scheme following a collective agreement between the Respondent and the pilots’ union.

Before the High Court, the Appellants argued that the PHI Handbook formed part of their employment contracts and entitled them to benefits until age 65 (or state pension age if higher). They also claimed that, because they were already “in claim”, the Handbook protected them from changes to the scheme.

Wednesday 13 May 2026

Barnes (Appellant) v BDB Pitmans LLP (Respondent) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 1 April 2025, the Appellant appeals an order made by the Circuit Court on 11 March 2025, which dismissed an appeal against an order made by the District Court.

The central issue is whether a written agreement between a solicitor and client concerning remuneration for contentious business constitutes a Contentious Business Agreement under the Solicitors Act 1974.

The Solicitors Act 1974 provide statutory protections for clients who enter into a Contentious Business Agreement, limiting what solicitors may charge and restricting the court’s discretion on costs assessment. Both the District Judge and Circuit Judge held that the agreement was not a Contentious Business Agreement, on the basis that it lacked sufficient clarity and certainty.

Wednesday 13 – Thursday 14 May 2026

Magic Investments S.A. (Appellant) v Broadbent and another (Respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 15 October 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 25 July 2025.

The appeal concerns a shareholder dispute in The Greater Good Fresh Brewing Co Ltd, founded by the Respondents. The founders had both loaned substantial sums to the company. In 2021, Magic Investments SA invested almost £1 million for shares, under a Subscription Agreement, a Nomination Agreement allowing it to nominate a director, and a deed binding it to the shareholders’ agreement. Later that year, all shareholders agreed to terminate the existing shareholders’ agreement and adopt new articles.

In 2022, the first Respondent converted part of his loan into shares through a share offering that Magic opposed. Magic brought a petition alleging unfair prejudice based on the board seat, failure to amend the shareholders’ agreement, dilution of its shareholding, and a proposed amendment pleading oral agreements.

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

Thursday 14 May 2026

Vince (Appellant/Claimant) v Tice (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 28 March 2025, the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court dated 26 February 2025.

Dale Vince OBE, founder of Ecotricity and a prominent Labour donor, brought separate libel claims against Paul Staines, editor of the Guido Fawkes website, and Richard Tice MP. The claims arose from articles and social‑media posts published in March 2024 following comments Mr Vince made in a Times Radio interview shortly after the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023.

Guido Fawkes published articles featuring an extract from the interview, and Mr Tice shared one of them on social media. The High Court held that the tweet was a statement of opinion.

Thursday 14 May 2026

(1) S (Children) (external link)

(2) S (Children)

(1) By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 27 February 2026 the Appellant appeals a decision of the Family Court, dated 20 February 2026. The Appellant seeks permission to appeal the findings of fact made against her.

The judge concluded that the children had suffered significant physical and emotional harm arising from abuse, instability, neglect, parental dishonesty, substance use, mental health difficulties, and failures to safeguard.

(2) By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 13 March 2026 the Appellant appeals a decision of the Family Court dated 20 February 2026, which found that the children’s injuries were non‑accidental and inflicted by either or both parents.

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)