Visit JCPCAll cases
1237 Cases
UKSC/2018/0075
•
CRIME
Judgment givenCase summary:Where property is held by the defendant and another person, in what circumstances is the court making a confiscation order required by section 160A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in determining the available amount, to give that other person a reasonable opportunity to make representations to it at the time the order is made? If section 160A does so require, does a failure to give that other such an opportunity render the confiscation order invalid?
Last updated: 17 March 2025
UKSC/2018/0164
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:See judgment
Last updated: 17 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0043
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 17 March 2025
UKSC/2024/0109
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Was the order for the Appellant’s extradition to Poland pursuant to a conviction warrant a disproportionate interference with her right to a private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Last updated: 14 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0028
•
TAX
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Are certain members of BlueCrest LLP to be treated as employees for tax purposes?
Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0042
•
Case summary:Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0039
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0004
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Awaiting hearing dateCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that Oatly AB could not validly register POST MILK GENERATION as a trade mark as this was prohibited under Article 78(2) and Part III of Annex VII of EU Regulation 1308/2013?
Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2018/0077
•
ENVIRONMENT/PLANNING
Judgment givenCase summary:See judgment
Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2023/0062
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Whether the current test for an account of profits (where a fiduciary has to pay back money earned due to a breach of a duty) should be changed to introduce a requirement that the fiduciary could not have made the same profit in a way that avoided a breach of duty, i.e. to introduce a test that asks: ‘Could the same profit have been made but for the breach of fiduciary duty’?
Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0041
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0040
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 March 2025
UKSC/2025/0017
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err: (i) in concluding that the appellant’s claim under article 3 ECHR, although beyond the temporal scope of the Human Rights Act 1998, did not satisfy the ‘Convention values’ test? (ii) in not applying its findings and those of the court below in respect of article 14 ECHR and, separately, the Windsor Framework to the appellant’s case? Alternatively, does the common law prohibition of torture act as a limit upon the sovereignty of Parliament?
Last updated: 12 March 2025
UKSC/2023/0152
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:This appeal concerns a claim for bereavement support payment (“BSP”). BSP is a non-means-tested contributory benefit, the purpose of which is to assist with the additional expenditure typically associated with bereavement. Under sections 30-31 of the Pensions Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”), a person is entitled to BSP if (among other things) their spouse dies and, for at least one tax year during the deceased’s working life, he or she paid national insurance contributions (“NICs”) (the “Contribution Condition”). The issues raised by this appeal concern: (i) the circumstances in which courts in England and Wales may depart from decisions of appellate courts in Northern Ireland and Scotland regarding the same or substantially similar legislation; (ii) whether the inability to work during one’s lifetime as a result of a disability constitutes an “other status” for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention; (iii) whether the policy behind the Contribution Condition justifies interference with Convention rights; and (iv) whether the CA was wrong in this case to have awarded the respondent an interpretive remedy under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the “HRA”), rather than making a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA.
Last updated: 12 March 2025
UKSC/2024/0066
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:What is the test for determining if a lender has constructive notice (and is, therefore, put on inquiry) that one party in a non-commercial relationship is being unduly influenced to enter a loan with their partner that will, in part, be used to benefit only their partner?
Last updated: 12 March 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.