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 – Tuesday 28 July 2026

(1) Upitis (Respondent/Claimant) v Transport for London (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

(2) Young (Respondent/Claimant) v Transport for London (Appellant/Defendant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 29 May 2025 and sealed on 4 June 2025, Transport for London appeals, with permission from HHJ Hellman, his order dated 22 January 2025 following a hearing at the County Court at Central London. The order entered Judgment in favour of the Claimants (now Respondents) subject to reductions for contributory negligence, together with all consequent orders for payment of damages and costs to the Respondents.

The appeals arise out of two personal injury claims, brought separately by Mr Young and Mr Upitis. and tried together by HHJ Hellman. Both Respondents were injured in cycling accidents that happened on a southbound section of a cycle route called “Cycle Superhighway 6”, which had been built by the Appellant. At trial, it was common ground that the only cause of action available to the Respondents was in common law negligence.

Monday 27 – Tuesday 28 July 2026

(1) Barclay (Applicant) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anr (external link)

(2) Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (Applicant) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anr

This hearing is for Permission to Appeal

(1-2) By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 30 June 2026, the Applicant applied for permission to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 23 June 2026, following a rolled-up hearing. This decision granted permission to apply for judicial review on certain grounds, dismissed the claim, and refused permission to appeal.

The applicant brought a judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision to approve the Gatwick Airport (Northern Runway Project) Development Consent Order 2025. The Order permits works to enable dual-runway operations at Gatwick Airport.

Tuesday 28 July 2026

A (A Child) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 20 May 2026 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court dated 28 April 2026. The Appellant appeals two decisions: the order for the summary return of the child to Australia, and the decision made on the first day of the hearing refusing the Appellant’s application for a doctor to give oral evidence.

Tuesday 28 July 2026

Peninsula Business Services Ltd (Applicant) v Tru Street Food Ltd (external link)

This is a hearing for security for costs.

Wednesday 29 July 2026

Osei-Bonsu (Appellant/Claimant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent/Defendant) (external link)

The Appellant appeals against a determination of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) dated 17 November 2025, dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FtT), which had dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against a decision refusing a human rights claim, made in the context of deportation proceedings.

The Appellant is a Ghanaian national who entered the UK in November 2004 and subsequently overstayed. He later formed a relationship with a British citizen, and they have child who was born in 2011. A was granted limited leave to remain based on his parental relationship but that leave expired in November 2021.

In 2023, the Appellant was convicted of crimes of a sexual nature and was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment. Following this conviction, the Secretary of State for the Home Department decided on 8 March 2023 to deport him.

Wednesday 29 July 2026

B (A Child) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 19 June 2026 the Appellant appeals a decision of the Family Court dated 29 May 2026.

The fact-finding hearing concerned a series of serious injuries sustained by the child between late 2024 and early 2025. During this period the Appellant had been in a relationship with an individual who was discharged as an Intervenor to proceedings.

The judge found that the Intervenor was responsible for all of the fractures and almost all of the bruising injuries. However, in relation to three specific bruising findings, the judge concluded that while there was a real possibility that Intervenor had caused the injuries, there was also a possibility that the Appellant had done so. The Appellant therefore appeals three of the 52 findings made by the judge.

Wednesday 29 – Thursday 30 July 2026

Coupland Cavendish Limited (Appellant) v Turner (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on15 July 2025, Coupland Cavendish Limited appeal the decision of Mr Justice Sweeting dated 26 June 2025, which overturned two case management decisions of Costs Judge Rowley regarding disclosure.

The proceedings concern a solicitor-own-client costs assessment initiated by Mr Stephen Turner against Coupland Cavendish Limited. The dispute arose following the delivery of a statutory bill for legal services rendered in a personal injury claim.

Mr Justice Sweeting held that the Costs Judge had erred in law and fact by imposing an unduly high threshold for disclosure and failed to recognise the fiduciary obligations of solicitors. The appeal was allowed on both grounds.

Thursday 30 July 2026

De Safa and others (Appellants) v The Republic of Mozambique (acting by its Attorney General) (Respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed and issued on 7 July 2025, the Appellants (who were Respondents below) seek to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Robin Knowles in the High Court on 16 June 2025. This judgment addressed the legal implications following the death of Mr Iskandar Safa, a defendant in the high-profile case brought by the Republic of Mozambique.

Mr Safa died on 29 January 2024, shortly after the trial concluded but before judgment was handed down. Mozambique sought to join Mr Safa’s widow and sons as defendants, arguing they inherited his liabilities under Lebanese law. The Court granted Mozambique’s application for joinder of the heirs as defendants, amendment of the pleadings, and service out of the jurisdiction.

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)