Visit JCPC
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
JCPC Hearing
Court room 3
Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) (Appellant) v Xiaohu Fan (Respondent) (Cayman Islands)01:00PM
Upcoming
- Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) (Appellant) v Xiaohu Fan (Respondent) (Cayman Islands)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
31 March 2025
Lord Sales,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Burrows,
Lord Richards,
Dame Janice Pereira
1) Whether the just and equitable winding-up jurisdiction may be used to alter, amend or supplement the normal effect of the law of contract in circumstances where the parties have entered into a contract regulating their relationship and where that contract expressly makes provision for the matter or matters giving rise to the Respondent’s complain. (2) Whether the Respondent’s complaint is governed exclusively by the law of contract. (3)Whether it was a breach of the duty to act in good faith for the General Partner to rely on entire-agreement clause in the 2017 Agreement to decline to give effect to assurances made outside of that Agreement. (4) Whether the reliance by the General Partner on the terms of the 2017 Agreement in not transferring the shares was misconduct in the management and affairs of the Partnership giving rise to a loss of trust and confidence as to justify the making of a winding up order on the just and equitable ground. (5) Whether the General Partner has breached its duty to act in good faith by refusing to transfer the shares in Legend Cayman to the Respondent so as to justify the making of a winding up order on the just and equitable ground. (6) Whether there is an adequate alternative remedy available to the Respondent by bringing an action for breach of duty under Section 19(1), Exempted Limited Partnership Act.
- Michael O'Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd and another (Respondents) v J.P. Morgan Europe Ltd and others (Appellants)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
1 April 2025
Lord Sales,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Burrows,
Lady Rose,
Lord Richards
(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked cases
- R (Appellant) v Layden (Respondent)
UK Supreme Court
Judgment
2 April 2025
Lord Hodge,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Stephens,
Lady Simler
Is the jurisdiction of the Crown Court to retry a defendant under sections 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1988 contingent upon the fulfilment of the procedural requirements contained in section 8 of the same act, such that a defendant who has not been arraigned within two months of the date of the order committing him for retrial cannot be lawfully retrial (save with leave of the Court of Appeal)?
- Johnson (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
1 April 2025
Lord Reed,
Lord Hodge,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Briggs,
Lord Hamblen
(1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation? (2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers? (3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies? (4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty? (5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?
Linked cases
- Wrench (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
1 April 2025
Lord Reed,
Lord Hodge,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Briggs,
Lord Hamblen
(1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation? (2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers? (3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies? (4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty? (5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?
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
26 March 2025
R (on the application of The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) (Appellant) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets and another (Respondents)19 March 2025
Rukhadze and others (Appellants) v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and another (Respondents)6 March 2025
The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) (Appellant) v Costantine (Respondent)- In the matter of an application for Judicial Review by JR123 (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)
26 February 2025
ZA (AP) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)