New Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 is published
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has today released the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025.
Image credit: WikipediaYou can download the 93-page guide here.
Offering updated and comprehensive guidance for individuals and legal professionals involved in civil appeals, the new guide reflects the latest procedural developments and aims to provide clear, practical support for navigating the appeal process in the Court of Appeal.
The guide is principally designed to outline the necessary steps for initiating and pursuing either an application for permission to appeal or an appeal itself. It distinguishes the roles of applicants, appellants, and respondents, clarifying the different procedural requirements each party must follow at each stage.
Rooted in Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 52C (PD 52C), the guide explains procedural requirements while also offering insights into how those rules are interpreted and applied in practice by the Civil Appeals Office. While it provides helpful summaries and explanations, the guide is not a substitute for the Rules and PD 52C, which remain the authoritative legal framework. In cases of discrepancy, the formal Rules prevail.
To support access to justice, especially for those without legal representation, the guide includes clearly marked guidance tailored for litigants in person. It also features a helpful glossary to ensure that legal terms and abbreviations are clearly understood, improving usability for all readers.
Section 7 of the guide covers appeals from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), and we have excerpted and reproduced it below:
Courts and
Tribunals Judiciary
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025
June 2025
[…]
7. Appeals from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
When does this chapter apply
7.1 This chapter applies if you are appealing a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("UTIAC"), on appeal from the First Tier Tribunal. This chapter does not apply to an appeal from a decision of UTIAC in a judicial review claim.
Permission to appeal applications
7.2 When seeking permission to appeal, you are not required to file a core bundle.
7.3 The Civil Appeals Office will obtain all the relevant documents from UTIAC directly and will make up a core bundle for the use of the court. [1] A copy of the core bundle index will be provided to you.
7.4 Although not required to do so, if an applicant files a core bundle at the permission stage, the court will check if it contains all the necessary documents. If it does, the court will use it as the core bundle and not make up a separate bundle. If it does not, the court will either supplement it with documents obtained directly from the Upper Tribunal or make up a core bundle and use the bundle filed by the applicant as a supplementary bundle.
Supplementary bundle
7.5 If there are additional documents (other than those in the core bundle) which are relevant to the grounds of appeal and which are necessary for the court to read in order to determine the application for permission to appeal, you must file these in a separate supplementary bundle which should not exceed 350 pages. [2] Any supplementary bundle should be lodged with the court within 14 days of the appellant's notice being sealed by the court. [3] You do not have to file a supplementary bundle if you are content to rely on the core bundle only.
7.6 If your proposed supplementary bundle contains more than 350 pages, you will need to make a formal application (pursuant to Part 23 – see chapter 8), applying for permission to rely on a supplementary bundle of more than 350 pages. [4] Before making any such application, you should rigorously assess the documents you propose to include in the supplementary bundle and only include documents which you consider are essential for the court to read for the purposes of determining the permission application. Extracts of relevant sections should always be used where it is not essential for the court to read the whole document. Permission will only be granted to rely on a supplementary bundle of more than 350 pages if the application is supported by cogent reasons.
Appeals
7.7 If permission to appeal is granted by the Court of Appeal and the core bundle at the permission to appeal stage was made up by the court, the Civil Appeals Office will add the following documents to the core bundle:
(i) the order granting permission to appeal;
(ii) the transcript of judgment if permission was granted at an oral hearing;
(iii) any respondent's notice;
(iv) the appellant's replacement skeleton argument (i.e. cross- referenced to the appeal bundle(s) [5])
(v) the respondent's replacement skeleton argument (i.e. cross- referenced to the appeal bundle(s)); and
(vi) a copy of any other orders made in the Court of Appeal.
7.8 The Civil Appeals Office will serve a copy of the full bundle on both the appellant and respondent and make up sufficient identical sets for use by the Lords and Lady Justices hearing the appeal.
7.9 Alternatively, if permission to appeal is granted by the Court of Appeal and the core bundle used at the permission to appeal stage was filed by the applicant, it will then be the applicant's responsibility to add the documents at para. 7.7 (i) to (vi) above, to the core bundle. Three hard copies and one electronic copy of the amended core bundle should be lodged with the court and one copy served on the respondent.
7.10 It is always the responsibility of the appellant's representative to supply three hard copies and one electronic copy of any supplementary bundle for use by the court and to serve a copy on the respondent.
Exceptions
7.11 There may be some exceptions where, for some reason, it is not possible for the Civil Appeals Office to obtain the papers from UTIAC or make up the core bundle. Bespoke directions will be given in these instances and applicants will be directed to make up and lodge a core bundle with the court.
[5] See PD 52C, para. 1 for definition of replacement skeleton argument.