Visit JCPCAll cases
1225 Cases
UKSC/2010/0101
•
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether there is an obligation to conduct an Article 2 ECHR-compliant inquest into deaths and subsequent investigations which occurred before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 1998; and whether the decision in Re McKerr should be overruled in the light of the Grand Chamber decision in Silih v Slovenia.
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2019/0193
•
CONSTITUTIONS
Judgment givenCase summary:1) Whether the challenge to the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is justiciable in the courts. 2) Whether the appeal is in any event academic, given Parliamentary sittings before the UK’s exit from the EU on 31 October 2019? 3) If the appeal is justiciable, whether the Prime Minister’s advice was lawful.
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0038
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:Can an individual make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence?
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0133
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary: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)?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2018/0191
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (the "Trustee") is trustee of notes with a nominal value of USD 3bn carrying interest of 5 per cent per annum (the "Notes"). The Trustee has applied for summary judgment of its claim against Ukraine for non-payment of the sums due under the Notes. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Ukraine should be permitted to defend the claim at trial. The appeals raise the following issues: (i) Did Ukraine have the capacity to issue the Notes or to ensure into the ancillary contracts? (ii) Were the Notes issued or the ancillary contracts entered into without authority? (iii) Can Ukraine maintain that it was entitled to avoid the Notes for duress exerted by the Russian Federation?(iv) Can Ukraine maintain that non-payment of the sums due under the Notes is a lawful countermeasure?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2018/0039
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:The appeal concerns whether the dishonest state of mind of the sole shareholder and a director of a company is attributable to the company for the purposes of a claim in negligence against a third party bank or broker and, if so, what the consequences are of that attribution. The appeal in relation to attribution raises the following questions: 1)What is the test for a “one man company”? Is it (a) a company where every single shareholder and director is implicated in the fraud, irrespective of whether the directors were involved in the management of the company at any point in time; or (b) a company that is wholly owned and controlled by a fraudulent sole shareholder and dominant director and/or by the only person involved in the management and ownership of the company? 2)Upon whom does the burden of proof lie so far as the role of the other directors is concerned? Does it lie: (a) upon the company on whose behalf the directors acted at the material time; or (b) upon the bank or broker? 3)In determining the question of attribution: a)Is it relevant to consider whether the company had a legitimate business, and/or b)Does the nature of the Quincecare duty lead to the conclusion that Mr Al Sanea’s fraudulent knowledge should not be attributed to the Respondent? If Mr Al Sanea's knowledge and fraudulent actions are attributable to the Respondent then the appeal raises a series of further questions: 1)Is the Respondent's claim defeated by lack of causation because the Quincecare duty does not extend to protecting the Respondent from its own deliberate wrongdoing and/or because the Respondent did not rely upon due performance of the Quincecare duty? 2)Does the reasoning of Evans-Lombe J in Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand (a firm) [2003] PNLR 34 apply where the Respondent is primarily (as opposed to vicariously) liable for the actions of Mr Al Sanea? 3)How does the three stage test recently identified by the Supreme Court in Patel v. Mirza [2016] 3 WLR 399 apply in this case? In particular: a)Is the Respondent's claim contrary to public policy? b)Does the existence of money laundering legislation and associated regulations provide a countervailing policy consideration in favour of allowing such a claim? c)Would it be disproportionate to deny the claim because of the ability to make a deduction for contributory negligence on account of the Respondent's own contributory fault?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2021/0089
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal wrongly find the appellant, part of the Jehovah's Witness organisation, to be vicariously liable for a rape committed by one of their elders?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0015
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary: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?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2021/0181
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Judgment givenCase summary:(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?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0124
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary: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?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0172
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Where a contractual force majeure clause contains a proviso requiring the party which is affected by force majeure to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome it, can the proviso require the affected party to agree to accept a non-contractual performance?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0145
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) was entitled to conclude that RM's mental disorder continues to be of a nature or degree warranting his continued detention in hospital for medical treatment (i.e. whether the test for discharge from a Restriction Order under Article 78 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (the Order) is met).
Linked casesLast updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0144
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) was entitled to conclude that RM's mental disorder continues to be of a nature or degree warranting his continued detention in hospital for medical treatment (i.e. whether the test for discharge from a Restriction Order under Article 78 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (the Order) is met).
Linked casesLast updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0127
•
EXTRADITION
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Would a requested person be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial where the law of the requesting state confers a right to retrial which depends on a finding by a judicial authority, in the requesting state, as to whether the requested person was deliberately absent from his trial? (2) Would a requested person be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial where it is not possible for a judge to say that a finding of deliberate absence by a judicial authority, in the requesting state, is "theoretical" or "so remote that it can be discounted"?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
UKSC/2022/0103
•
EXTRADITION
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) For a requested person to have deliberately absented himself from trial for the purposes of section 20(3) Extradition Act 2002, must the requesting authority prove that he has actual knowledge that he could be convicted and sentenced in absentia? (2) Where the requesting authority asserts that it can be demonstrated by inference that a requested person could reasonably foresee that he could be convicted and sentenced in absentia, must the inference be the only reasonable inference?
Last updated: 21 February 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.