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 13 – Wednesday 14 October 2026

McCaffrey and Another (Appellants) v Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland and Others (Respondents) (external link)

This is a rolled up hearing to determine: Firstly, whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal either pursuant to the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or by treating the application for permission to appeal as an application for judicial review. Secondly, whether the appeal should be allowed.

The Appellants, investigative journalists, produced the documentary “No Stone Unturned”, investigating the 1994 Loughinisland massacre and alleged state collusion. They seek to appeal a decision by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal dated 17 April 2025. The appeal concerns the Tribunal’s refusal to award them costs or adjust compensation to reflect costs, despite findings of unlawful surveillance by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Tuesday 13 – Wednesday 14 October 2026

Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Limited (Appellant) v Mazzagatti and others (Respondents) and Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) PTE Limited (Respondent) v Francesco Dixit Dominus and others (Appellants) (external link)

Both sides seek to appeal the decision of Mr Lionel Persey KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, order handed down 24 August 2026. The proceedings arise from a substantial fraud and misappropriation claim brought by Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd against Francesco Mazzagatti and Francesco Dixit Dominus. The company alleges that the two individuals controlled its finances and those of its subsidiary and misappropriated at least €143.8 million through diverted customer payments, profits and transfers from company bank accounts.

Tuesday 13 – Wednesday 14 October 2026

Johal (Appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) and Jen and Jamie Limited (Appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

Both appeals relate to penalties for alleged employment of individuals without a right to work in the UK contrary to section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA).

Mr Johal appeals the order dated 1 April 2025 of HHJ Keyser KC sitting in Cardiff County Court. On 9 October 2024 the Respondent imposed a civil penalty of £80,000 on the Appellant for the alleged illegal employment of two individuals, on the basis they had “no right to work” in the UK.

Jen and Jamie Ltd appeals the order dated 14 July 2025 of HHJ Robinson BEM sitting at the County Court at Middlesbrough, dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the issuing of a Civil Penalty Notice by the Respondent, and making a costs order and giving other directions as to costs assessment.

Tuesday 13 October 2026

RM (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the determination of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber UTIAC dismissing their appeal of the decision refusing asylum. The Appellant claims risk on return on account of violence. The Respondent refused the asylum claim on the basis that the account was not credible and he did not face risk of persecution.

Tuesday 13 – Wednesday 14 October 2026

Parsons (Appellant) v Convatec Limited (Respondent) (external link)

The Appellant seeks to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Mellor, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 14 November 2025. They also seek to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Richards, sitting as a Judge of the High Court (Patents Court), judgment being delivered on 16 February 2026.

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent for 32 years and alleges that, during his employment, he made several inventions that were incorporated into commercially successful wound dressing products. In the substantive proceedings he seeks compensation under section 40 of the Patents Act 1977 on the basis that the Respondent has derived an “outstanding benefit” from those inventions and the resulting patents.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant and Respondent for CA-2025-003029 Appellant and Respondent for CA-2026-000805

Lower Court Judgments: case reference CA-2025-003029 and case reference CA-2026-000805 (external links)

Wednesday 15 – Thursday 16 October 2026

Daniel Makin (by his mother and Litigation Friend Ms V Barber) (Appellant) v The Restaurant Muse Ltd (Discontinued) & Ors (Respondents) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of HHJ Pearce, order dated 7 May 2025, sitting as a High Court Judge in the King’s Bench Division Manchester. In 2017, the Appellant Mr Makin was assaulted by a door supervisor outside the Muse Bar and Restaurant in Oldham. As a result, he suffered a stroke that has left him with profound neurological disability.

On 11 July 2023, His Honour Judge Sephton KC determined that the company which employed the door supervisor, Protec Security Group Ltd, was vicariously liable for the assault and Mr Makin’s injuries, including the stroke. Mr Makin is unable to recover damages because it went into liquidation the day before the liability trial. After Mr Makin obtained judgment against Protec, he joined QBE Insurance Ltd, Protec’s liability insurer for the relevant period, pursuant to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant and Respondent

Lower Court Judgment (external link)

Wednesday 14 October

Drelle (Appellant) v Servis-Terminal LLC (A company incorporated under the laws of the Russian Federation) (Respondent) (external link)

In an order dated 27 July 2026 the Supreme Court remitted grounds of appeal 2- 4 to the Court of Appeal for determination. This matter was previously heard in the Court of Appeal in 2024.

The Appellant had been a shareholder and CEO of the Respondent which was declared bankrupt by a Russian court in 2017. Claims were brought in Russia against the Appellant by the Respondent’s trustee in bankruptcy and the court gave judgement for the Respondent. Eventually the Respondent served a statutory demand in respect of the debt on 9 October 2020 in England and Wales and presented a bankruptcy petition on 13 October 2020 which was granted by an Insolvency and Companies Court Judge.

Thursday 15 October 2026

The King on the application of AAM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (external link)

The Appellant appeals the decision of Mr Justice MacDonald, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 28 March 2025, which quashed the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 12 January 2023.

He found that it was unlawful for the Home Department to apply an incorrect and unduly restrictive approach to the question of whether there was reasonable grounds for believing he was a victim of trafficking. The claim raised an important point of whether detention and torture for the purposes of extracting payment from family members of a ransom release constitutes ‘exploitation’ for the purpose of Article 4 of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking (ECAT) and r.3(6)(d) of the Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) 2022 Regulations.

Thursday 15 – Friday 16 October 2026

Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Limited and Another (Appellants) v Devalk and Others (Respondents) (external link)

This is an appeal the decision of Judge McGrath in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dated 16 September 2025 which dismissed an appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 25 March 2024 where it determined on an application under section 27A(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that no service charges would be payable by a number of respondent lessees in respect of proposed works to the façade of the subject property known as Centre Point House. The issue concerns the provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022.

Skeleton Arguments: Appellant (and Appendix), Respondents 1 to 10, Respondents 11 and 12, and Respondent 13

Lower Court Judgment (external link)

Thursday 15 – Friday 16 October 2026

Liberty Managing Agency Ltd in its capacity as managing agent for Lloyd’s Syndicate 4472 for the 2016 year of account and Ors v Chedid and Anr (external link)

The Appellants appeal the decision of Mr Justice Jacobs sitting in the High Court, King’s Bench Division, dated 11th September 2026. The appeal concerns a Policy of Directors, Officers Liability Insurance and Company Reimbursement.

Thursday 15 October 2026

The King on the application of Kanish Fatima and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department (external link)

The Appellants appeal the order of Upper Tribunal Judge Smith dated 22 April 2025 by which the Upper Tribunal ordered that the Appellants are to pay the Respondent’s costs of the application for judicial review.

By a judicial review claim, the Appellants challenged the Respondent’s decision dated 6 December 2022 refusing them indefinite leave to remain (ILR) on the five-year settlement protection route. Eventually the parties reached settlement with the Respondent agreeing to grant the ILR. The Respondent conceded the case on the basis that the application was academic having regard to the grant of ILR. The parties were however unable to agree costs.

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)