Visit JCPCAll cases
1251 Cases
UKSC/2023/0131
•
COMMERCIAL
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:1. On its true construction, does the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (‘1976 Convention’) permit a charterer to limit its liability to an owner for a claim concerning loss originally suffered by the owner itself? 2. On their true construction, what is the scope of Article 2.1(a), (e) and (f), 1976 Convention?
Last updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2023/0177
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2023/0176
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2023/0175
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2023/0174
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2023/0173
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2023/0172
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2024/1003
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Hearing listedCase summary:The correct interpretation of sections 6(4) and 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (as prior to amendments made by the Prescription Act 2018)
Last updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2023/0154
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase summary: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)?
Last updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2024/0159
•
COMMERCIAL
Hearing listedCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2024/0158
•
COMMERCIAL
Hearing listedCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2024/0157
•
COMMERCIAL
Hearing listedCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2025/0057
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 2 April 2025
UKSC/2018/0197
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Secretary of State’s published policy in Chapter 55 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance satisfied the requirements of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation. If not, whether damages are payable in respect of the detention of the Respondents either for the tort of false imprisonment or pursuant to EU law under the principle established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Factortame case.
Last updated: 1 April 2025
UKSC/2025/0032
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:The lawfulness of the designation of an ‘associate’ under the UK sanctions regime in the light of human rights law.
Last updated: 1 April 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.