Current cases

Did the Court of Appeal err in:

1. holding that rectification is not available for a collective agreement which is not intended to be a legally enforceable contract;
2. refusing to allow the claim to be amended;
3. holding that an employment tribunal has power to reject a complaint on the grounds of rectification;
4. holding that it would be an abuse of process to raise rectification in respect of past complaints and/or that a claim for rectification was estopped; and
5. its holding on privity of interest.

Did the Court of Appeal correctly interpret section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by determining that: (1) a person can 'enter into' a transaction where they act on behalf of a company; and (2) there can be a 'transaction' for the purposes of section 423 where the asset which is alleged to have been disposed of at an undervalue was not beneficially owned by the 'debtor'?

Was the majority of the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the collateral warranty in this case was a "construction contract" for the purposes of section 104(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996?

Was the CA wrong to find that Tesco was entitled to terminate certain employment contracts which included an entitlement to "Retained Pay", described as "permanent", and offer re-engagement on terms without Retained Pay (the so-called "fire and re-hire" mechanism)?

Are the courts of England and Wales the proper place for UniCredit to bring its claim for an anti-suit injunction against RusChemAlliance, or should the claim have been brought in France? Are the arbitration agreements between the parties governed by French law or English law?

Was the Court of Appeal right, in balancing the respective article 8 and article 10 rights, to discharge the relevant Reporting Restriction Orders ("RROs")?

Whether it is correct that under s.13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 a minister can only suspend a public inquiry where the minister takes the view that it is necessary to allow for the completion of civil or criminal proceedings?

This case concerns s. 1219 of the Corporation Tax Act ("CTA") 2009 which enables a company with an investment business to deduct the expenses of management of that business in calculating its profits for the purpose of determining its liability to corporation tax. The first issue is what is the correct way to identify expenses of management of an investment business which are of "a capital nature" and therefore excluded from corporation tax deductions. The second issue is whether the disputed expenses in question in this case were "expenses of a capital nature".

1) Does Article 6(1) ECHR apply to QX's challenge to the Temporary Exclusion Order ("TEO") placed upon him by the SSHD? Did the first instance Judge err in law in holding that QX was not entitled to disclosure of the kind described in AF (No 3) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 28; [2012] 2 AC 269 ("AF No. 3") in relation to his challenge to the SSHD's determination of Conditions A and B when imposing the TEO?

2) What is the role of the Court in determining a challenge to the SSHD's decision to impose a TEO? Does the Court of Appeal have the power to make the factual assessment of terrorist-related activity for itself, or is it limited to an administrative review of the decision made by the SSHD?

Does a failure to serve a claim notice on an intermediate landlord with no management responsibilities invalidate a right to manage claim under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002?

Is a pilot unexpectedly falling ill while off-duty an "extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken" within the meaning of EC Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), which provides for air carriers to pay compensation to passengers of cancelled flights?

Were the LLPs entitled to enterprise zone allowances in respect of the price they paid to acquire the benefit of a construction contract?

This appeal concerns the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the "1975 Act"), which gives courts the power to order a lump or recurring sum to be paid out of the estate of a deceased person for his or her family and dependants. Section 3(1)(a) of the 1975 Act provides that, in determining whether and in what manner the court should exercise such a power, it shall have regard to "the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future" (among other matters).

The question for the UK Supreme Court is: was the Court of Appeal wrong in law to decide that a conditional fee agreement ("CFA") success fee is a debt the satisfaction of which may constitute a "financial need" for which the court may make provision in an award under the 1975 Act?

Whether the Court has the jurisdiction/power to recognise a foreign bankruptcy at common law. This depends on the nature and effect of the choice of law rule of private international law known as the "immovables rule" that, as a matter of English law, a foreign Court has no jurisdiction to make orders in respect of land situated in England and that rights relating to such land are governed exclusively by English law ("Immovables Rule").

1. What is the test for determining "bad faith" in s.3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994?
2. If such bad faith is found, what is the correct approach to determining the specification that the proprietor of the trademark should be permitted to retain?

Is the relationship between a company responsible for providing football referees to the Football League and part-time referees an employment relationship so as to trigger an obligation on the company to deduct Income Tax and National Insurance from the payments it makes to the referees?

Can The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited bring a private law claim in nuisance and/or trespass against United Utilities Water Limited ("UU") in respect of unauthorised discharges of untreated foul water by UU into the canal?

The correct approach to remedy breaches by the Home Office of their statutory duty to consider children in immigration applications and whether that approach varies across different parts of the UK.

Whether, under a contract of property insurance, the assured can have an insurable interest in property forming part of a bulk where the bulk itself is unidentified.

In respect of an established nuisance, was there an available and effective alternative remedy in private law such as to oust an application for judicial review against the public authorities?

In the circumstances, did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the police did not owe road users a duty of care to protect them from harm, either on the basis that their presence at the scene made the situation worse or that they assumed a responsibility to protect road users?

Can the Public and Commercial Services Union ("PCS") enforce a contractual term offering the facility for "check-off arrangements", whereby employees' trade union subscriptions are deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS, pursuant to section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

1. Was the Court of Appeal wrong in its interpretation of section 70(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (the "Act") because (i) it found that there does not need to be a "settlement of account" in order for there to be a "payment" under section 70(4) of the Act; and (ii) it did not take into account the regulatory framework and protection of consumers in construing section 70(4) of the Act?
2. Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the Respondent had complied with Rule 4.3 of the Solicitors' Account Rules?

Whether the one-year time limit in Article III, rule 6 of the Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for mis-delivery of cargo after discharge of the cargo from the vessel.

Whether the current test for an account of profits (where an individual has to pay back money earned due to a breach of a duty) should be changed?

Is it lawful for a local authority's constitution to restrict voting by members on a deferred application for planning permission to those who had been present at the meeting(s) at which the application had previously been considered?