Visit JCPCAll cases
1577 Cases
UKSC/2018/0178
•
PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 31Case summary:Whether the rule against reflective loss bars creditors of a company from claiming directly against a third party for asset-stripping the company.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0150
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 33Case summary:Does the court have jurisdiction to direct members of a charitable company on how to exercise their powers absent a breach of fiduciary duty?
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0173
•
PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 34Case summary:Whether the Judge made a finding that torture had not been proved on the balance of probabilities. The correct treatment of hearsay evidence in a civil trial where the possibility of torture cannot be ruled out. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the contention that a payment to an individual who was not an employee or agent should not give rise to an irrebuttable presumption of bribery.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0062
•
HOUSING, LANDLORD & TENANT
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 36Case summary:Whether the doctrine of restraint of trade applies to a restrictive covenant in a lease granted by the respondent’s predecessor in title to the appellant.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0208
•
TAX
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 35Case summary:This appeal is principally about whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 ("IHTA 1984") a "disposition" which is a "transfer of value" in favour of her sons, who were to be the beneficiaries of the death benefit. The relevant statutory provisions are section 3(1) IHTA 1984, read with section 10(1), and section 3(3) IHTA 1984.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2019/0042
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 37Case summary:1. Does the English court have the power or jurisdiction, or is it a proper exercise of any such power or jurisdiction without the parties’ agreement:to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio; to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND? 2. If the answer to (i) is "yes", is England the proper forum for such a claim in the circumstances of the Conversant proceedings?3. What is the meaning and effect of the non-discrimination component of the FRAND undertaking and does it mean that materially the same licence terms as offered to Samsung must be offered to Huawei in the circumstances of the Unwired case?4. Does the CJEU’s decision in Huawei v ZTE mean that a SEP owner is entitled to seek an injunction restraining infringement of those SEPs in circumstances such as those of the Unwired case??
Linked casesLast updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2019/0041
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 37Case summary:1. Does the English court have the power or jurisdiction, or is it a proper exercise of any such power or jurisdiction without the parties’ agreement:to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio; to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND? 2. If the answer to (i) is "yes", is England the proper forum for such a claim in the circumstances of the Conversant proceedings?3. What is the meaning and effect of the non-discrimination component of the FRAND undertaking and does it mean that materially the same licence terms as offered to Samsung must be offered to Huawei in the circumstances of the Unwired case?4. Does the CJEU’s decision in Huawei v ZTE mean that a SEP owner is entitled to seek an injunction restraining infringement of those SEPs in circumstances such as those of the Unwired case?
Linked casesLast updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0214
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 37Case summary:1. Does the English court have the power or jurisdiction, or is it a proper exercise of any such power or jurisdiction without the parties’ agreement:to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio; to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND? 2. If the answer to (i) is "yes", is England the proper forum for such a claim in the circumstances of the Conversant proceedings?3. What is the meaning and effect of the non-discrimination component of the FRAND undertaking and does it mean that materially the same licence terms as offered to Samsung must be offered to Huawei in the circumstances of the Unwired case?4. Does the CJEU’s decision in Huawei v ZTE mean that a SEP owner is entitled to seek an injunction restraining infringement of those SEPs in circumstances such as those of the Unwired case?
Linked casesLast updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0194
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 41Case summary:Is notice to an applicant of revocation of a sponsor’s licence in respect of his or her Tier 2 (General) Migrant application required as a matter of procedural fairness?
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2019/0162
•
HOUSING, LANDLORD & TENANT
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 40Case summary:Whether the Second Respondent can lawfully restrict the provision of its social housing to members of the Orthodox Jewish community. Whether the First Respondent can lawfully maintain its housing nomination arrangements with the Second Respondent.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0231
•
CRIME
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 39Case summary:Whether proof of an offence contrary to Regulation 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 brought against a business operator as defined in Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires proof of mens rea and/or some culpable act or omission on the part of the business operator.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2020/0091
•
ARBITRATION
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 38Case summary:What is the correct approach to determining the proper law of an arbitration agreement? What is the relevance of the parties’ choice of law for the main contract under Rome I? What is the role of the court of the seat of an arbitration and in what circumstances is it appropriate or permissible for the English court to permit a foreign court to decide whether proceedings before the foreign court are a breach of an arbitration agreement?
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0200
•
TORT
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 43Case summary:Where a claimant, during a serious psychotic episode, committed a criminal offence, which she would not have committed but for the defendant’s negligence, can she recover damages for the consequences of having committed the offence, including her subsequent loss of liberty?
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0187
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 42Case summary:The issue for the Supreme Court is whether the Court of Appeal: erred in its application of the Patel v Mirza guidelines.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
UKSC/2019/0006
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment given[2020] UKSC 45Case summary:The correct approach to the ‘public interest’ requirement on an application for the modification or discharge of restrictive covenants under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Last updated: 28 September 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.