Litigating on camera: practical guidance for litigating in a livestreamed court

Monday 23 February 2026 had long been circled in legal diaries: the start date of Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, one of the year's most anticipated hearings, in which the Court of Appeal is to rule on the question of who may lawfully conduct litigation. On the preceding Friday, as final preparations were underway, the Court of Appeal issued a Transmission Direction Order — requiring anyone wishing to observe the proceedings remotely first to request permission to do so.

The requirement to seek permission was, at first glance, something of an anomaly. Most hearings in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) are now routinely live streamed, with no prior permission required. Members of the public can simply navigate to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Live Stream site, click on the relevant case title, and watch proceedings on YouTube. 

However, as the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, explained on the first day of the hearing, the Mazur case could not be live streamed in the ordinary way because one of the parties was a litigant in person. Section 6(2) of the Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013 provides that: "in a hearing where any party is not legally represented, recording is only of the court giving judgment."

In other words, the default live streaming regime was unavailable. The Transmission Direction Order in Mazur, therefore, was a means by which the Court was nonetheless able to facilitate some degree of public access to the hearing, because, as the Order itself acknowledges, the case is "of great public interest" and "the Court anticipates there is likely to be interest from media representatives and members of the public in observing the appeal remotely."

This approach reflects the judiciary's broader commitment to open justice, most recently embodied in Practice Direction 51ZH, which we covered in a recent article. The two-year pilot (January 2026 – December 2027), operating across the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court, and the Financial List, requires key litigation documents — including skeleton arguments, witness statements, expert reports, and documents critical to understanding the case — to be publicly filed on CE-File by default once used in open court, removing the need for third parties to apply separately for access. 

Transparency is increasingly the default. For litigators, the requirements around remote observation and live streaming, as well as the proactive publication of critical litigation documents, create a new landscape in which reputational risk must increasingly be kept in focus at every stage of an action. 

In general terms, this trend seems to us to be a good thing. Justice should indeed be seen to be done. But there are some considerations it may be useful to have front of mind:

• draft pleadings and conduct advocacy with a broader audience in mind, whilst guarding against the temptation to direct submissions towards those watching the stream rather than the tribunal — the true audience remains the judge or judges;
• prepare witnesses thoroughly for the reality that their evidence may be observed by a large, anonymous and potentially international audience — counselling them on the after-effects of being watched online, including the risk of adverse social media commentary and attempts to identify or contact them following their testimony — and consider whether the prospect of livestreaming may affect a witness's willingness to give candid evidence or to cooperate at all;
• be alert to the risk that high-profile livestreamed proceedings may, in some instances, attract personalised commentary directed at counsel themselves, and take proportionate steps to manage personal security and wellbeing accordingly;
• advise clients and witnesses on the risks of being drawn into public commentary about ongoing proceedings;
• monitor actively throughout any livestreamed hearing whether orders or protective measures are being circumvented, and be prepared to draw this to the court's attention and seek variation or suspension of the livestream where necessary;
• in high-value or high-profile disputes, co-ordinate strategy between legal advisers and communications professionals to ensure that the public record created by the litigation does not undermine the client's commercial position or market relationships;
• apply promptly for appropriate confidentiality orders where justified, factoring in the timetable and cost implications of any such applications; and
• explore mediation or arbitration as alternatives where confidentiality is key.

The Mazur appeal, one way or the other, will be very much in the public eye. But for all cases, open access to the litigation process looks to be increasingly the way forward. 

Copyright & permissions