
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
We are the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.
The Court is open today from 9.00AM to 4.30PM
LISTINGS
Upcoming
- Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Appellant) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co. Limited and another (Respondents) No 2 (Trinidad & Tobago)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Judgment
28 August 2026
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Stephens,
Lord Doherty,
Lady Wise
These appeals concern allegations of clinical negligence following Aeden’s birth. The issues raised for the JCPC’s consideration all concern findings of fact in relation to the cause of Aeden’s cerebral palsy. In Dr Abdulla’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0063), and in Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s cross-appeal (JCPC/2025/0065/A) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to reverse the High Court’s finding of fact as to the timing of Dr Abdulla’s arrival? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that causation was inevitably proved against Dr Abdulla, if it was proved that he arrived at 4am? In Aeden Balwah’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0065) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the High Court’s finding that it had not been proved that Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s breach of duty caused Aeden Balwah’s cerebral palsy?
Linked cases
- Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Respondent) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co. Limited (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Judgment
28 August 2026
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Stephens,
Lord Doherty,
Lady Wise
These appeals concern allegations of clinical negligence following Aeden’s birth. The issues raised for the JCPC’s consideration all concern findings of fact in relation to the cause of Aeden’s cerebral palsy. In Dr Abdulla’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0063), and in Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s cross-appeal (JCPC/2025/0065/A) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to reverse the High Court’s finding of fact as to the timing of Dr Abdulla’s arrival? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that causation was inevitably proved against Dr Abdulla, if it was proved that he arrived at 4am? In Aeden Balwah’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0065) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the High Court’s finding that it had not been proved that Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s breach of duty caused Aeden Balwah’s cerebral palsy?
Linked cases
- Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his mother and next friend) and another (Respondents) v Marwan Ahmad Alsayed Abdulla (Appellant) (Trinidad & Tobago)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Judgment
28 August 2026
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Stephens,
Lord Doherty,
Lady Wise
These appeals concern allegations of clinical negligence following Aeden’s birth. The issues raised for the JCPC’s consideration all concern findings of fact in relation to the cause of Aeden’s cerebral palsy. In Dr Abdulla’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0063), and in Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s cross-appeal (JCPC/2025/0065/A) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to reverse the High Court’s finding of fact as to the timing of Dr Abdulla’s arrival? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that causation was inevitably proved against Dr Abdulla, if it was proved that he arrived at 4am? In Aeden Balwah’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0065) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the High Court’s finding that it had not been proved that Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s breach of duty caused Aeden Balwah’s cerebral palsy?
Linked cases
- R (on the application of Ammori) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
4 November 2026
Was the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 lawful?
- Townsend (Appellant) v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (Respondent)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
12 January 2027
Is there an obligation on an NHS commissioning body to apply to the Court of Protection to resolve disputes about medical treatment (including life-sustaining treatment) where the treatment sought on behalf of an incapacitated patient is not being offered by the patient’s treating clinicians because they have concluded that such treatment is clinically inappropriate? Was the Court of Appeal wrong not to order interim relief under section 48 Mental Capacity Act 2005?
Linked cases
THINGS TO DO

Take a tour of the Court
We offer a range of tours to suit individuals and groups, including in-person and virtual tours.
Exhibitions and events
Find out what's on, including our permanent exhibition about the history and work of the Court.
Our cafe
The UK Supreme Court cafe is open to the public Monday to Friday between 9am and 4pm.
SPEECHES
LATEST JUDGMENTS
27 August 2026
Avon Freeholds Limited (Respondent) v Cresta Court E RTM Company Limited (Appellant)12 August 2026
Augustine (Appellant) v Data Cars Limited (Respondent)27 July 2026
Tesla, Inc and another (Appellants) v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc and others (Respondents)- Valeriy Ernestovich Drelle (Respondent) v Servis-Terminal LLC (In Liquidation in the Russian Federation) (Appellant)
- R v Sheikh and others (Respondents)





