The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Upcoming

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  9 June 2025

  X (Appellant) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent)

  Lord Reed,

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lady Simler

  Does the Appellant’s case against the Respondent under section 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 satisfy the first stage of the test for vicarious liability?

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Judgment

  11 June 2025

  Andrysiewicz (Appellant) v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland (Respondent)

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Sales,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lady Simler,

  Lord Burnett

  When considering whether extradition pursuant to a conviction warrant is a proportionate interference with the requested person’s right to respect for their private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), what is the relevance of the possibility of early release in the requesting State?

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  11 June 2025

  In the matter of an application by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for Judicial Review (Appellant)

  Lord Reed,

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Sales,

  Lord Stephens

  (1) What is the correct approach to reviewing the decision of an inferior court or tribunal that has purported to disagree with the assessment of national security issues by the responsible Minister? (2) Were cogent (or any) reasons provided in this case sufficient to render lawful the proposed departure from the Minister’s assessment? (3) Does procedural fairness require a coroner proposing to provide a gist of sensitive information, over which public-interest immunity has been asserted in a Ministerial Certificate, to give the relevant Minster an opportunity to make representations and submissions on the proposed gist before the decision is made to release it? (4) Did the coroner here act ultra vires, Wednesbury irrationally and/or fail to take into account a material consideration when she ordered disclosure of a gist / information damaging to national security when the inquest could never be completed by operation of statute?

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Hearing

  16 June 2025

  Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd (Respondent) v Bidzina Ivanishvili and 6 others (Appellants) No 2 (Bermuda)

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Richards,

  Lady Simler

  The Cross-Appeal is advanced on four grounds. In summary, the Cross-Appellants contend that the misrepresentation claim should be governed by Bermuda law, with the result that the 3-year Georgian law limitation period should not apply, because either: (i) the Imanagement exception to the double actionability rule applies (Ground 1); or (ii) if Georgian law is to be taken into account pursuant to the double actionability rule, that should include Georgia’s choice of law rules which the Cross-Appellants contend refer actionability back to Bermudian law (Ground 2). The Cross-Appellants also contend that the misrepresentation claim was based on the same or substantially the same facts so that it was appropriate for the Chief Justice to give leave to amend the original Statement of Claim (and so defeat any Georgian law limitation defence) (Ground 3). Finally, the Cross-Appellants contend that this is an appropriate case for finding that the Cross-Appellants were induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations, notwithstanding that they may not have contemporaneously and consciously turned their minds to the specific misrepresentations that were conveyed (Ground 4).

  Linked cases

  JCPC/2024/0022 Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd (Appellant) v Bidzina Ivanishvili and 6 others (Respondents) (Bermuda)

  Cross-appeal

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Hearing

  16 June 2025

  Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd (Appellant) v Bidzina Ivanishvili and 6 others (Respondents) (Bermuda)

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Richards,

  Lady Simler

  CS Life advances six grounds of appeal. In summary, it argues that judgment on the contractual claims is inconsistent with the contractual documentation and that there is no scope for any fiduciary duties. In the alternative, CS Life appeals on three grounds relating to quantum. It contends that damages (i) should be assessed on the basis of the specific transactions identified as objectionable by the experts, rather than on the basis that the entire portfolio should be replaced with an alternative medium risk portfolio from the outset (Ground 4); (ii) should have been calculated from the dates the LPI Policies were entered into rather than the date the Policy Assets were transferred into the name of CS Life (Ground 5); and (iii) should only have been calculated to August 2017 (Ground 6).

  Linked cases

  JCPC/2024/0035 Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd (Respondent) v Bidzina Ivanishvili and 6 others (Appellants) No 2 (Bermuda)

  Cross-appeal

  ---