All cases
1211 Cases
UKSC/2021/0038
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the death of a disabled woman who was deprived of her liberty engaged the state’s obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, therefore requiring an inquest jury to make findings regarding the circumstances by which the death occurred.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2023/0131
•
COMMERCIAL
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(1) On its true construction, does the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (‘1976 Convention’) permit a charterer to limit its liability to an owner for a claim concerning loss originally suffered by the owner, itself? (2) On their true construction, what is the scope of Article 2.1(a) and (f), 1976 Convention?
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0184
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0183
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0182
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0181
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0180
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0179
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0178
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0177
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:These appeals against the orders of the Butcher J and Flaux LJ concern the construction of certain provisions in insurance policies written by the Appellant Insurers, and obtained by a range of businesses and organisations, which purport to provide coverage in the event of business interruption. The Divisional Court considered the construction of each policy wording and the FCA, the Appellant Insurers and the Hiscox Interveners appeal on a number of points. However, broadly speaking, the Supreme Court is asked to determine:1. certain matters of construction relating to: a. "Disease Clauses" (i.e. those which can be triggered by the occurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ("COVID-19"), typically within a specified distance of the insured’s premises); b. "Prevention of Access Clauses" (i.e. those triggered by public authority intervention preventing access to, or use of, premises as a result of COVID-19); and c. "Hybrid Clauses" (i.e. those clauses which contain wording from both Disease and Prevention of Access Clauses), and2. whether the Divisional Court was correct: a. to apply certain counterfactual scenarios in relation to the operation of the clauses in relevant policies which provided for loss adjustments (the "Trends Clauses"); and b. in its analysis of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0158
•
Judgment givenCase summary:Should Ms Begum be granted leave to enter the UK so that she can pursue her appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deprive her of British citizenship? Was the Special Immigration Appeals Commission wrong to apply judicial review principles to Ms Begum’s appeal against the deprivation decision? If Ms Begum is refused leave to enter the UK, should her appeal against the deprivation decision be allowed?
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0157
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment givenCase summary:Should Ms Begum be granted leave to enter the UK so that she can pursue her appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deprive her of British citizenship? Was the Special Immigration Appeals Commission wrong to apply judicial review principles to Ms Begum’s appeal against the deprivation decision? If Ms Begum is refused leave to enter the UK, should her appeal against the deprivation decision be allowed?
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2020/0156
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment givenCase summary:Should Ms Begum be granted leave to enter the UK so that she can pursue her appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deprive her of British citizenship? Was the Special Immigration Appeals Commission wrong to apply judicial review principles to Ms Begum’s appeal against the deprivation decision? If Ms Begum is refused leave to enter the UK, should her appeal against the deprivation decision be allowed?
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2018/0161
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether home workers who are required to remain at home in their shift and/or residential care workers who ‘sleep in’ are entitled to the national minimum wage for time that is not spent actually performing some specific activity.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
UKSC/2018/0160
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether home workers who are required to remain at home in their shift and/or residential care workers who ‘sleep in’ are entitled to the national minimum wage for time that is not spent actually performing some specific activity.
Last updated: 6 February 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.