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 17 March 2026

These hearings have been adjourned

(1) Lufthansa Technik AG (a company incorporated in Germany) (Appellant/Claimant) v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & anr (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

(2) Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & ors (Appellants) v Lufthansa Technik AG (Respondent)

(3) Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems & anr (Appellants) v Lufthansa Technik AG (Respondent)

(4) Lufthansa (Appellant) v Safran (Respondent)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025, the Appellant, Lufthansa Technik AG, seeks to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 21 February and the dependent decision delivered on 30 April 2025.

Lufthansa previously succeeded in patent infringement claims against Astronics, Panasonic, and Safran. The dispute forms part of wider, long‑running litigation starting in Germany in 2010. UK proceedings began in 2017 (Astronics and Safran) and 2019 (Panasonic).

The court held Lufthansa was entitled to interest because once profits were earned, the defendants were treated as holding them for Lufthansa.

The Appellant argues that the legal framework for calculating profits wrongly reduced the number of profits they should have been awarded. Thus, the Appellant appeals the methodology that reduced the recoverable profit.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025, the Appellant, Astronics Advanced Systems Limited (Defendants below), seeks to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 21 February and the dependent decision delivered on 30 April 2025.

Lufthansa succeeded in patent infringement claims against Astronics, Panasonic and Safran and chose an account of profits. The dispute forms part of wider, long‑running litigation starting in Germany in 2010. UK proceedings began in 2017 (Astronics and Safran) and 2019 (Panasonic).

The court held Lufthansa was entitled to interest because once profits were earned, the defendants were treated as holding them for Lufthansa. Astronics argues that the judge wrongly refused to make the profits award provisional, improperly downplaying the risk of double recovery and overlooking key factors such as Lufthansa’s potential windfall and the unresolved foreign proceedings. They also say the judge had no lawful basis to award interest, and challenge the interest rate selected.

(3) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 June 2025, the Appellants (Defendants below) Astronics Advanced Systems Limited and others, seek to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 20 March 2025.

This matter concerns Lufthansa’s European patent relating to in‑seat power supply systems for aircraft. Astronics supplied components for such systems, Safran integrated them into seats, and Panasonic incorporated them into its in‑flight entertainment systems. The patent had already been upheld as valid and infringed in earlier proceedings

The court found that all defendants infringed: Astronics indirectly, Safran directly, and Panasonic under common design.

(4) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 10 June 2025 and issued on 12 June 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 30 April 2025 following trial.

This matter concerns an account of profits for patent infringement. The court held that it does have equitable jurisdiction to award interest on an account of profits. The court refused to make a provisional award or include a recital in the order to allow future adjustments.

Tuesday 17 March 2026

Due to ongoing technical issues, this appeal is not available to view via live stream. Apologies for any inconvenience

Singh (Appellant/Claimant) v Bains and another (Respondents/Defendants) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 16 May 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court, delivered on 28 February 2025.

The dispute stems from a breakdown in the formerly close personal and professional relationship between the Claimant and the First Defendant.

The Claimant and the First Defendant went into business together, with the Claimant believing they had a “50/50” agreement to share both profits and ownership of the business ventures. The First Defendant denied this, accepting only an arrangement to share net profits.

The court held that the Claimant had not proved the existence of an alleged oral agreement on the balance of probabilities. The Claimant’s claims were dismissed.

Wednesday 18 March 2026

The King on the application of Hilltop Experiences Ltd (Appellant) v Norfolk County Council (Respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 3 July 2025, the Appellant appeals an order of the High Court which dismissed a judicial review claim and ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs, capped at £10,000.

The judicial review was brought by Hilltop, an outdoor education centre for children, challenging the council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) near its site in Cromer.

Wednesday 18 March 2026

56 Fellows Road Ltd (Appellant/Claimant) v ABC Block Management Ltd (Respondent/Defendant)

By an appellant’s notice, filed and sealed on 26 February 2025 the appellant company, the Appellant appeals the order, dated 8 December 2024 of the Central London County Court, allowing the Respondent’s appeal and setting aside the order of the District Judge and reinstating an interim charging order.

This matter involves a judgment debt owed to the Respondent by the Appellant company.

Issue: Whether payment by the director was in personal capacity or a discharged debt of company, and whether a charging order is valid.

Wednesday 18 March 2026

Wetherell (Appellant/Claimant) v Student Loans Co Ltd (Respondent/Defendant)

The claim is for damages for personal injury. From 2012 to 2014, the Claimant worked in the Defendant’s call centre and says he suffered tinnitus from spikes of noise from a headset.

The Claimant issued proceedings in negligence under Council Directives, alleging that his employer failed to provide suitable work equipment and that the Directives were directly enforceable against the Defendant.

At trial, the judge dismissed the claim, holding that the Defendant was not an emanation of the State.

Thursday 19 March 2026

Currie (Appellant/Claimant) v Soho Theatre Co Ltd (Respondent/Defendant)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 24 April 2025, the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court dated 3 April 2025.

The Claimant is a stand‑up comedian who performed his show at the Defendant’s Soho Theatre in February 2024. His defamation claim arises from a Press Release issued by the Defendant on 13 February 2024, published on its website and on Twitter, concerning an incident that occurred at the end of his performance on 10 February 2024.

Thursday 19 March 2026

Lettington & Anr (Respondents/Claimants) v Davies & Anr (Appellants/Defendants)

The Appellant appeals an order from the County Court of 19 June 2025 finding her in contempt of an injunction dated 17 October 2024. The dispute concerns access along a track serving the Claimants’ property, over which they hold a right of way.

Thursday 19 March 2026

Murcott (Appellant/Claimant) v The Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent/Defendant)

The Appellant appeals the decision the High Court, dated 4 June 2025, which refused permission to bring a judicial review claim.

The Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision of 23 April 2024 refusing to convene an oral hearing when considering whether his security classification should be downgraded from Category A to Category B.

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)