Visit JCPCAll cases
1605 Cases
UKSC/2026/0087
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Hearing listedCase summary:Does the High Court have jurisdiction to make a Recovery of Defence Costs Order (“RDCO”) in respect of civil contempt proceedings?
Last updated: 12 November 2026
UKSC/2020/0155
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment given[2022] UKSC 20Case summary:The scope of diplomatic immunity is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the "1961 Convention"). The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether: (1) a serving diplomat’s employment of a "trafficked" domestic servant at his UK diplomatic residence constitutes the exercise of a "commercial activity", an exception to the 1961 Convention which would prevent him from asserting immunity from civil suit pursuant to the 1961 Convention; and (2) in arriving at a determination as to the first issue, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") was correct that the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the views of Lords Sumption and Neuberger JSC (the "Sumption Judgment") in the case of Reyes v Al-Malki [2019] AC 735 ("Reyes") represent the "current state of the law" given that, in that case, such comments were not central to the issue decided.
Last updated: 12 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0110
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Hearing listedCase summary:Does the High Court have the inherent power to make a second order requiring a judgment debtor, or the officer of a judgment debtor, to attend Court for examination as to the means of the judgment debtor to satisfy its judgment debt, in circumstances where the Court has previously made such an order under CPR Part 71 but no longer has the power to make a fresh such order?
Last updated: 12 November 2026
UKSC/2025/0177
•
ARBITRATION
Hearing listedCase summary:Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 November 2026
UKSC/2025/0176
•
ARBITRATION
Hearing listedCase summary:Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?
Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0012
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Whether the state is entitled, in light of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (“A1P1”), to deprive a person of their possessions in the public interest without paying, or ensuring they recover, market value for those possessions, in circumstances where the policy objective of the deprivation measure is not undermined or diminished by ensuring market value is recovered.
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0151
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Where a party adopts a particular position (“position X”) in interim proceedings, is that party estopped by its conduct from adopting a position contrary to position X in a later action between the parties? Does it matter that the party to be estopped successfully amended its position in the first proceedings to remove any inconsistency with that taken in the later action? (2) Did the Court of Appeal correctly apply the causation test for the estoppel by conduct doctrine? (3) Was the Court of Appeal correct to strike out the estopped party’s counterclaim as an abuse of process, rather than leaving the issue to be resolved at trial?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0154
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Can multiple consumer claims concerning the application of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 be conveniently disposed of in a single set of proceedings commenced by a multi-claimant claim form pursuant to CPR 7.3?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0150
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:The level of knowledge for a plaintiff to be considered to have “discovered” fraud under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0144
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:In relation to an appeal by way of case stated against a driving conviction, did the High Court of Justiciary fail to address the appellant’s Devolution Minute?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0147
•
EMPLOYMENT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Can health insurance entitlements under a contract of employment constitute wages for the purposes of an unpaid wages claim brought after dismissal?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0145
•
INSOLVENCY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Is the out-of-court appointment of an administrator rendered void if made for an improper purpose? (2) Is a contractual request for information invalid if made for an improper purpose?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
UKSC/2021/0160
•
CONTEMPT
Judgment given[2021] UKSC 58Case summary:(1) Did the Supreme Court wrongly decide that Mr Crosland’s disclosure of the result of the Heathrow appeal, in breach of an embargo on the Court’s judgment, constituted a contempt of court? (2) Did the Court then wrongly impose a fine of £5,000 on Mr Crosland, and wrongly order him to pay the Attorney General’s costs in the sum of £15,000?
Last updated: 10 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0170
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 10 November 2026
UKSC/2020/0138
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment given[2022] UKSC 15Case summary:The appeal raises the following issues: (A) Does a decision under paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules as to whether a person can reasonably be expected to stay in part of their country of origin import a value judgment including consideration of that person’s criminal conduct in the UK? (B) If the answer to A is No, did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in holding that A could not reasonably be expected to stay in a different part of Jamaica? (C) Did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in her assessment of section 117C(4)(b)-(c) of the NIAA 2002 and paragraph 399A(b)-(c) of the Immigration Rules in holding that A is socially and culturally integrated in the UK and there would be very significant obstacles to his integration in Jamaica. (D) Did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in embarking on a freestanding assessment of article 8, applying the wrong test and failing to give sufficient weight to the public interest in A’s deportation.
Last updated: 10 November 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.