All cases

Filters

1260 Cases


  • UKSC/2025/0004

    Case summary:

    Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that Oatly AB could not validly register POST MILK GENERATION as a trade mark as this was prohibited under Article 78(2) and Part III of Annex VII of EU Regulation 1308/2013?

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2024/1009

    Case summary:

    (1) Were debts validly and effectively assigned to CRF? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in law by allowing a new and unpleaded point to be raised by CRF on appeal?

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0008

    Case summary:

    Was the Upper Tribunal wrong in law to decide that no procedural irregularity had taken place when it had refused the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0011

    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal (“CA”) err in allowing the appeal and entering summary judgment for the defendant to a libel action? In particular: (1) Section 15(3) of the Defamation Act 1996 says that qualified privilege does not apply to “…matter which is not of public interest and the publication of which is not for the public benefit.” Did the CA err in treating these two conditions as consecutive for the claimant to establish, rather than cumulative for the defendant to establish? (2) Did the CA err in excluding contextual matters pursuant to s.15(3)? (3) Did the CA err in determining that a live broadcast is capable of amounting to a ‘report’ for the purposes of s.15(1)?

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0013

    Case summary:

    In summary, did the Court of Appeal err by holding that: (1) The trial judge at first instance was entitled to disapply provisions of the Legacy Act under Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework (and the related EU and Treaty mechanisms); (2) The trial judge was wrong to find no violation of the European Convention of Human Rights ("ECHR") with respect to the ability of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“ICRIR”) to comply with its obligations under the ECHR.

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0015

    Case summary:

    Does section 67 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“PCPA 2004”) and/or Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (“2005 Regulations”) impose a duty on a local planning authority in Wales to adopt a local development plan which an Inspector has recommended for adoption?

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0006

    Case summary:

    Does the finding that the Respondent environmental consultant firm fulfilled its duty of care owed to the residents of a housing development, made in the lead action of a cohort of 76 claims, justify sustaining a plea of res judicata against the Appellant?

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0001

    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal err by holding that: (1) The planned treatment scheme under Article 18 of the Protocol on Social Security Co-Ordination of the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom did not permit otherwise qualifying applicants from the United Kingdom to receive diagnostic treatment in the European Union under that scheme, requiring a prior diagnosis to avail of treatment under the scheme. (2) The case was academic, and did not raise a point of general public importance. (3) The Appellant was not permitted to introduce the medical journals articles either by way of evidence or as part of the authorities.

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0005

    Case summary:

    Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that (A) whether the claims are time-barred has not been finally determined in the Prudential test case, and should be determined in the present proceedings by applying the law as it stands now (“Limitation Issue”); (B) GREA is not entitled to a claim in restitution for payment of unlawful advance corporation tax utilised against lawful tax or repaid before the issue of its claim (“Set-off Issue”); and (C) by 1 April 2010, the Appellants had not pleaded a claim in restitution for the recovery of unlawful tax paid as a result of their inability to offset unused double taxation relief credit (“Pleading Issue”)?

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2024/0081

    Case summary:

    Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the first instance decisions definition of “crematorium” for the purposes of the Crematorium Act 1902.

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0061


    Case summary:

    Last updated: 11 April 2025


  • UKSC/2025/0035

    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal err by (1) failing to ensure procedural fairness, (2) improperly interfering with the Upper Tribunal’s findings of fact, and (3) applying the wrong legal tests for recklessness and dishonesty?

    Last updated: 10 April 2025


  • UKSC/2024/0042

    Case summary:

    Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?

    Last updated: 10 April 2025


  • UKSC/2023/0053

    Case summary:

    Was the Court of Appeal right, in balancing the respective article 8 and article 10 rights, to discharge the relevant Reporting Restriction Orders ("RROs")?

    Linked cases

    Last updated: 10 April 2025


  • UKSC/2023/0052

    Case summary:

    On what basis can injunctions, granted in connection with proceedings initiated to determine whether it is in a child’s best interests that life-sustaining treatment should be withdrawn, be continued once those proceedings have ended?

    Linked cases

    Last updated: 10 April 2025


Sign up for case email alerts

Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.