The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Upcoming

• UK Supreme Court

  Judgment

  21 October 2026

  ScottishPower (SCPL) Limited and others (Respondents) v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant)

  Lord Reed,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lady Rose,

  Lady Simler,

  Lord Doherty

  Does the rule preventing the deduction of penalty payments for the purpose of calculating taxable profits encompass payments made to consumers/consumer organisations in settlement of regulatory investigations?

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Hearing

  22 October 2026

  Servol Limited (Appellant) v Early Childhood Teachers Trade Union (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lady Simler

  Does the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to decide that a failure to provide for retirement benefits constitutes a breach of good industrial relations practices for which an award was justifiable under the Industrial Relations Act 1972, section 10(3)?

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Hearing

  26 October 2026

  Oilfield Workers' Trade Union (Appellant) v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited and another (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lady Rose,

  Lord Snowden

  Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the respondent did not commit an industrial relations offence under section 40(1) of the Industrial Relations Act Chap 88:01?

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Hearing

  26 October 2026

  Martin Phillip Revenales (Appellant) v Eric Charles and 5 others (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Stephens

  Is the claimant entitled to an order vesting in him title to the land owned by the second defendant, based on the claimant’s occupation of the land for over 16 years?

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  27 October 2026

  In the matter of an application by Bridie Brown for Judicial Review

  Lord Sales,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lord Snowden

  In summary, did the Court of Appeal err by: (1) Concluding that the ministerial advice was deficient, in a way which failed to apply the correct standard of Wednesbury irrationality; and then not permitting the Appellant to reconsider the decision in light of full and fresh advice from officials addressing the matters identified by the Court of Appeal. (2) Assuming the role of decision-maker in this case and overstepping its constitutional boundaries. (3) Failing to properly consider what is characterised as the ‘floodgates argument’. (4) Taking into account its recent decision in Dillon, despite that decision being subject of an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court, and the relevant part of the decision being a section 4 Human Rights Act (“HRA”) declaration that did not change the law. (5) Ignoring the scheme for remedial action under the HRA, and or the Appellant’s appeal rights in relation to Dillon. (6) Concluding, in both its consideration of the substantive appeal and in relation to remedy, that this case was an exceptional one that could be distinguished from other similar Troubles related cases. (7) Concluding that the choice faced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (“SOSNI”), when considering the appropriate investigative mechanism to discharge the Article 2 European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) investigative obligation, was a “binary one” meaning that the only lawful option available was to order a Public Inquiry. (8) Then ordering the mandatory holding of a public inquiry.

  ---