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.

Find a case

The Court is closed for the remainder of the day

QUICK LINKS

LISTINGS

Upcoming

UK Supreme Court
Hearing
22 July 2026
Stenner (Appellant) v Teignbridge District Council (Respondent)
Lord Sales,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Burrows,
Lady Simler,
Lord Snowden
What is the correct test the courts should adopt when applying the “Ouster Principle” in the context of determining whether a purported easement is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant (and therefore valid)?
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
22 July 2026
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)
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Stephens,
Lord Doherty
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
JCPC/2025/0063 Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his mother and next friend) and another (Respondents) v Marwan Ahmad Alsayed Abdulla (Appellant) (Trinidad & Tobago)
Legal Issue
JCPC/2025/0065/A Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Respondent) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co. Limited (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Cross Appeal
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
22 July 2026
Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his mother and next friend) and another (Respondents) v Marwan Ahmad Alsayed Abdulla (Appellant) (Trinidad & Tobago)
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
JCPC/2025/0065 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)
Legal Issue
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
2 November 2026
Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Sintra Global Inc and another (Appellants)
When a taxpayer appeals against an HMRC penalty on the basis that the underlying tax claimed is not owed, does the burden rest on the taxpayer to prove that he or she is not liable to pay the underlying tax?
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
23 November 2026
The Czech Republic (Respondent) v Diag Human SE and another (Appellants)
Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?
Linked cases
UKSC/2025/0177 The Czech Republic (Appellant) v Diag Human SE and another (Respondents) No 2
Legal Issue