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.

Friday 6 June 2025

Coupang, Corp (claimant/respondent) v DAZN Group Ltd (defendant/appellant) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 22 May 2025 the Appellant (Defendant below) DAZN Ltd, appeal the decision of HHJ Pelling KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 19 May 2025 following a hearing on 16 May 2025.

This appeal relates to whether in the circumstances that have arisen, there is a contract between the claimant and the defendant contained in, or evidenced by, an exchange of emails by which, so the claimant alleges, it was agreed that the defendants would sub-license to the claimant the live broadcast and video on-demand rights for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 for the territory of South Korea, co-exclusively with DAZN, an associated company of the defendant, in return for payment by the claimant of US$1.7 million.

Monday 9 – Tuesday 10 June 2025

(1) Rafiu & ors (respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (appellant) (external link)
(2) Ahmad (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)

(1) Appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) promulgated on 22nd September 2022 allowing the appeal from the refusal of entry. The applicants are the husband and step children of Mrs O. They are the children of A1 who is married to Mrs O. Their mother is deceased. O had sought entry as the carer of an EU national then resident in Nigeria but now in the UK . She had been refused entry and so entry was refused to the applicants below on the basis of that.

(2) Appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) promulgated on 9 November 2023.

The appellant is a national of Pakistan who applied for an EEA family permit as the dependant of her son who is an Irish national who was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK under the EUSS. The application was refused and the First Tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal finding that she failed to establish dependency as a direct relative.

At the re hearing, the Upper Tribunal found that the First Tier Tribunal decision contained no error and or unfairness. The First Tier Tribunal was entitled to come to the conclusion regarding dependency from the evidence that was before him.

Tuesday 10 June 2025

AmTrust Europe Ltd (appellant) v Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd & ors (respondents) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 December 2024, the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 29 November 2024 of Mr Peter MacDonald Eggers KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which the Judge refused to include Disclosure Issues 1A and 1B as Issues for Disclosure.

In the proceedings the Claimant is Novitas Loans Limited. The Defendant is AmTrust Europe Limited who is the Appellant. Endurance Worldwide Insurance Limited (trading as Sompo International) is the Third Party who is the Respondent. High Street Solicitors Limited (in Administration) is the Fourth Party.

The underlying dispute relates to the Defendant’s application that Issues 1A and 1B in the Disclosure Review Document for the Part 20 Proceedings between the Defendant and the Third Party should be included as issues for disclosure in the approved Disclosure Review Document and/or that Extended Disclosure should be given in respect of Issues 1A and 1B.

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 June 2025

Haworth & ors (appellants) v HM Revenue & Customs (respondent) (external link)

This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber). The appellants are the settlors of separate family trusts which engaged in a tax planning arrangement known as the “round the world” scheme. They hoped that the trustees of the family trusts would avoid capital gains tax on disposals of shares on the flotation of a company called TeleWork Group Plc. It was common ground that the scheme was effective to achieve the capital gains tax savings if, amongst other things, the family trusts became resident in Mauritius by the time of disposal. The scheme would only be effective if the place of effective management (the “POEM”) of the trusts was in Mauritius. The First Tier Tribunal held that the POEM of the trusts at the material time was the UK and dismissed the appeal. This decision was appealed to the Upper Tribunal who were satisfied that the First Tier Tribunal made no error of law in the test it applied.

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 June 2025

Watson (claimant/respondent) v MH Site Services Ltd & anr (defendants/appellants) (external link)

By appellant’s notice submitted on 5 February 2024, MH Site Services Limited and Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited, the defendants below, appeal the order of HHJ Wood KC, sitting in County Court at Liverpool, dated 16 January 2024 dismissing the defendant’s appeal and upholding the decision of DJ Baldwin that he had no power to make a case management direction pursuant to CPR 3.1(2) in Part 8B proceedings which are stayed pending submission of a Stage 2 settlement pack and dismissing the application.

The proceedings are in relation to a low value personal injury claim arising from a road traffic accident which commenced within the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Claims in Traffic Road Accidents.

Tuesday 10 – Wednesday 11 June 2025

(1) Alex Neill Class Representative Ltd (claimant/respondents) v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd & anr (defendants/appellants) (external link)
(2) Apple Inc. & Apple Distribution International Ltd (defendants/appellants) v Kent (class representative/respondent)
(3) Visa Inc & ors (defendants/appellants) v Commercial & Interregional Card Claims II Ltd (applicant/respondent)
(4) Commercial & Interregional Card Claims I Ltd (applicant/respondent) v Visa Inc & ors (defendants/appellants)
(5) Commercial & Interregional Card Claims I Ltd (applicant/respondent) v Mastercard & ors (defendants/appellants)
(6) Commercial & Interregional Card Claims II Ltd (applicant/respondent) v Mastercard & ors (defendants/appellants)
(7) Gutmann (respondent) v Apple Inc & ors (appellants)

These are seven linked appeals from the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the issue is whether funding arrangements were unenforceable, damages-based agreements, under s.58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

The cases all raise issues stemming from the decision in R (PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 in which it was held that litigation funding agreements pursuant to which the payment to the funder is calculated as a percentage of the damages award are unenforceable insofar as they relate to opt out collective proceedings.

Wednesday 11 June 2025

Wuhi Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership Enterprise (Ltd Partnership) (appellant) v GLAS SAS (London Branch) & ors (respondents) (external link)

By an Appellants Notice filed on 3 January 2025, the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 13 December 2024 of Stephen Houseman KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which he imposed conditions for the Appellant being permitted to defend the proceedings.

Wednesday 11 June 2025

Ellis (claimant/appellant) v The Secretary of State for Education & anr (defendant/respondent) (external link)

The Appellant appeals the order of Foster J, sitting in the Administrative Court, dated 29 September 2023 by which she partially allowed a judicial review claim brought by the Appellant.

The Appellant is a serving prisoner having been convicted of attempted murder. He brought a judicial review challenge regarding the application of a set of regulations pertaining to student loans, what is argued to be in generalised terms “the prejudicial treatment of prisoners in comparison to those in the community accessing higher education”, and a particular decision concerning removal of a laptop and access to IT facilities.

Foster J heard the judicial review and found that the Applicant was successful on the removal of laptop argument only and not on three other grounds.

Link to lower Court Judgment

Appellant Skeleton Argument

Respondent Skeleton Argument

Wednesday 11 June 2025

Norton (claimant/appellant) v London Borough of Haringey (defendant/respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on and sealed on 16 July 2024, the Appellant below (A) appeals the order, of HHJ Saggerson, sitting in the County Court at Central London whereby the Judge dismissed A’s appeal and confirmed the Respondent local authority’s (R) review decision dated 3 October 2023, and made costs orders.

In the County Court A appealed R’s review decision dated 3 October 2023 that accommodation secured for him in performance of the main housing duty under section 193(2), 1996 Act, was suitable for him and his son.

Thursday 12 June 2025

Re: M (a child) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed at this Court on 20 March 2025), this is an appeal against the decision of Hayden J, sitting in the Family Division of the High Court, dated 27 February 2025. The appellant is the child (through his solicitor who is acting as his litigation friend), who appeals the decision to refuse the application for summary return of the child from Ghana to this jurisdiction.

Thursday 12 June 2025

Kireeva (claimant/appellant) v Zolotova (defendant/respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 11 November 2024, the claimant below appeals the decision of Sir Anthony Mann, sitting as a judge of the High Court, dated 21 October 2024 striking out the claim, vacating the trial, and making a costs order.

Thursday 12 June 2025

Re: S (a child) (external link)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed at this court on 13 May 2025, this is an appeal against the decision of Mr Justin Warshaw KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the High Court Family Division, dated 22 April 2025. The appellant mother appeals against the decision to order the summary return of the subject child to the Republic of Ireland.

Friday 13 June 2025

Vince (claimant/applicant) v Secretary of State for Transport (defendant/respondent) (external link)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 14 November 2024, the Applicant seeks permission to appeal the order of
Heather Williams DBE who refused permission to bring a judicial review claim.

The Applicant sought permission to bring a judicial review challenge to the Respondent’s decision of 2 October 2023 to withdraw the statutory guidance ‘Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel’.

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)