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 case 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 15 July 2025

AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd (appellant) v On Tower UK Ltd (respondent) (external link)

By appellant’s notice filed on 25 November 2024, the Appellant below appeals, with permission, the decision of the President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Mr Justice Edwin Johnson, dated 9 September 2024, where the appeal was allowed in part.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerned the status of two agreements, each relating to the installation and operation of telecommunications equipment on an area of land. The question which arises is whether each of these agreements (one of which was subsequently amended) took effect as a licence or a lease.

Tuesday 15 – Thursday 17 July 2025

(1) Retirement, Saving & Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers (appellant) v Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd & anr (respondents) (external link)
(2) National Iranian Oil Company (appellant) v Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd & anr (respondents)

(1) By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 29 May 2024 the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 15 April 2024 by Sir Nigel Teare sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge dismissed the application.

(2) By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 29 May 2024 the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 17 May 2024 by Sir Nigel Teare sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge dismissed the application and made costs orders.

Background to these appeals – Retirement, Saving and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers, the second Defendant, is a closely related entity to National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), an Iranian state-owned oil and gas company who is the Judgement Debtor. The Judgement Creditor is Crescent Gas Corporation Limited (CGC), a private limited company who is a subsidiary of Crescent Petroleum Company International Limited (CPIL). CPIL is a privately owned exploration and production company in the Middle East.

On 25 April 2001 CPCIL entered into a 25-year term Gas Sales and Purchase Contract (GSPC) with NIOC. CPCIL assigned its rights under the GSPC to CGC (its wholly owned subsidiary) on 26 July 2003. NIOC failed to supply any gas pursuant to the GSPC leading to CGC commencing arbitral proceedings pursuant to the GSPC by Notice of Arbitration of 15 July 2009. CGC eventually secured an award of damages.

Tuesday 15 July 2025

MU (respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (appellant) (external link)

The Secretary of State appeals the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) Chamber) (UTIAC) promulgated on 29th April 2024.

MU is a national of Bangladesh who entered in 2016 as a spouse of a British citizen and then had leave until October 2021. He pleaded guilty to rape and in November 2016 was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment. The SSHD made a decision to deport.

The First Tier Tribunal allowed his appeal. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the SSHD’s appeal finding no error.

Tuesday 15 July 2025

Linear Investments Ltd (claimant/appellant) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (defendant/respondent) (external link)

The Appellant, Linear, brought a judicial review challenge of a decision made by the Respondent in response to a complaint made by the the interested party about the Appellant. The complaint against Linear was upheld by the Ombudsman in its decision of 29 April 2022. Linear was ordered to compensate the complainer by reference to the performance of his investment in Linear’s “Pembroke strategy” with that of the benchmark of the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index and to pay him the difference between the fair value and the actual value of the investment, together with interest.

Mrs Justice Stacey dismissed the judicial review claim.

Tuesday 15 July 2025

The Czech Republic (claimant) v Diag Human SE and another (defendants) (external link)

This is a further hearing following Judgment.

Appeal 1 – By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 2 May 2024, this is an appeal by the Czech Republic against the Order, dated 8 March 2024 of Foxton J sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge at paragraphs 145 to 147 decided that the tribunal would not have jurisdiction to determine if investments for a claim by the second Respondent for damages were a breach.

Appeal 2 – By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 2 May 2024, this is an appeal by the defendants below against the Order, dated 8 March 2024 of Foxton J sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge dismissed the challenge brought pursuant to s.67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, deciding that it be determined at a second hearing (but only to the extent identified in paragraph 232 of the Judgement) and placing no conditions on the Respondents permission to appeal in respect of its first ground of appeal.

Appeal 3 – By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 22 November 2024, this is a further appeal by the claimant against the Order, dated 25 October 2024 (Judgment 9 August 2024) of Mr Justice Foxton sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge dismissed the Claimant’s arbitration challenge. The dispute relates to an investment in the blood plasma market in Czechoslovakia in the 1990s (later the Czech Republic from 1 January 1993). Operations in the Czech Republic were via a Czech company called Conneco (to which Diag Human SE, the First Respondent, is the successor company). Mr Stava the second Respondent is a Swiss national who held shares in Diag Human SE.

Wednesday 16 July 2025

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd (claimant/appellant) v Dechert LLP & ors (defendants/respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed and issued on 7 March 2025 the Appellant (Claimant below) appeals the decision of The Hon Mr Justice Waksman, sitting in the Commercial Court, judgment being delivered on 14 February 2025.

This appeal concerns the Judge’s refusal to permit an amendment, made prior to the first CMC in the quantum phase (Phase 2) of this lengthy, ongoing litigation, thereby depriving the Appellant (ENRC) of the opportunity to claim proper compensation for the loss it suffered as a result of a criminal investigation into ENRC and its subsidiaries (the CI). The SFO announced the CI publicly in April 2013 and the Court has already found that it would not have been opened but for the SFO’s wrongdoing. The prejudice to ENRC is significant: it is claimed by the Applicant that the effect of the decision was to wipe out close to 50% (US$128m) of the total US$290m of damages sought by ENRC.

Wednesday 16 July 2025

Re: H (children) (external link)

This is two appeal against the decision of UTJ Mandalia, sitting as a High Court Judge in the Family Court, dated 24 April 2025. The first appeal is by the intervenor, who seeks to appeal the findings of fact made against him. The second appeal is by the mother who appeals certain findings of the fact-finding judgment.

Wednesday 16 July 2025

Generics (U.K.) Ltd & ors (claimants/respondents) v Astrazeneca AB (defendant/appellant) (external link)

This is a post hearing directions hearing.

This was an appeal heard on the 25 and 26 June 2025 against the order of Michael Tappin KC (sitting as a Deputy High Ccourt Judge) dated 28 April 2025 that declared that the patent was at all material times invalid. In the proceedings, the Claimants sought declarations that supplementary protection certificates were invalid and orders for their revocation, as well as a declaration that European Patent, which was the basic patent on which the SPCs were granted, was invalid. The Patent was originally in the name of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. but was assigned to the Defendant in 2014. The Patent claimed a priority date of 20 May 2002 and expired on 14 May 2023. It claimed a compound known as dapagliflozin and its use in the manufacture of a medicament for, inter alia, treating diabetes.

Wednesday 16 July 2025

Le Patourel (appellant) v BT Group Plc & ors (respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 6 March 2025 and sealed on 10 March 2025, Justin Le Patourel, Class Representative below, applies for permission to appeal the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal dated 19 December 2024, dismissing their claim that the Respondents abused their dominant position by charging unfair prices for BT Standalone Fixed Voice Services in breach of Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998.

Wednesday 16 – Thursday 17 July 2025

Kerish International Motors Agency (appellant) v Opel Automobile GmBH (respondent) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 2 August 2024 the Appellant appeals the Order dated 7 May 2024 of Mr David Quest KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge dismissed the application.

The dispute relates to whether the Claimant has a right as a Commercial Agent under Article 15 of the Palestinian Law (the 2000 Law) to claim compensation from the Defendant who terminated and did not renew the agreement without a serious reason.

Thursday 17 July 2025

Tesco Stores Ltd (appellant) v Element & ors (respondents) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 February 2025, Tesco appeals against the order made by the HHJ Tayler, sitting in the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), sealed on 10 February 2025, giving directions at a preliminary hearing on equal pay appeals which are to be listed for full hearing .

The issue is: where an appellant to the EAT identifies alleged errors of law in its grounds of appeal and chooses to illustrate those errors of law by reference to certain specific findings within the judgment under appeal, is the scope of its appeal to any extent limited to those specific findings?

The backdrop is over 47,000 Claimants with equal pay claims against Tesco.. The claim were begin in 2018. None has been determined. The claims are in three tranches.

This appeal concerns a stage 2 equal value hearing that took place in tranche one claims in respect of three job roles in which the work of two sample claimants for each of the three roles and eight comparators have been considered.

Thursday 17 July 2025

Re: SA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (external link)

Application by Associated Newspapers to lift anonymity in the underlying appeal for which judgment was handed down on the 28 March 2025.

Thursday 17 – Friday 18 July 2025

Begum (appellant) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the order dated 4 September 2024 of David Pittaway KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Admin Court, dismissing the Appellant’s Judicial Review claim following a substantive hearing.

The correct exercise of homelessness functions under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. Whether system used was indirectly discriminatory and/or in breach of PSED

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)