Visit JCPCAll cases
1427 Cases
UKSC/2025/0125
•
NEGLIGENCE
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:(i) In a loss of chance claim, should the benefit received by the claimant reduce the damages that they are owed by the full amount of the benefit or should the benefit be discounted by the probability of the loss of chance occurring? (ii) Can the facts of the present case be distinguished from the case of Hartle v Laceys?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0113
•
NEGLIGENCE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(i) In what circumstances should a benefit received by the claimant from a breach of contract or duty reduce the damages that they are awarded for such breach? (ii) If a party is free to sell the property affected by the breach of contract or duty once completed but does not intend to, does this decision prevent further recovery from the underlying breach?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0120
•
COMMERCIAL
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Are holders of a cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) who claim that BSVs value reduced after it was delisted by cryptocurrency exchanges required to mitigate their loss by selling BSV and buying another similar cryptocurrency? (2) Can BSV holders claim for the lost chance for BSV to develop into a top tier cryptocurrency?
Last updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0161
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Was Moderna’s patent relating to Covid-19 vaccines invalid, or was the information within the patent already within the public domain and therefore not patentable?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0160
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Was Moderna’s patent relating to Covid-19 vaccines invalid, or was the information within the patent already within the public domain and therefore not patentable?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2020/0168
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:What is the meaning and effect of paragraphs 20 and 27 of the Electronic Communications Code as set out in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003?
Last updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2021/0051
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Does the Upper Tribunal have jurisdiction to confer rights over land in favour of an operator under the Electronic Communications Code (the Code) where that operator has a Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) protected tenancy and is in occupation of the land?
Last updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2019/0225
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Does the Upper Tribunal have jurisdiction to confer rights, under the Electronic Communications Code ("the Code"), in relation to a particular site, on the Claimant in circumstances where a third party, namely Vodaphone, is currently in occupation of the site?
Last updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0177
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment scheduledCase summary:(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0176
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment scheduledCase summary:(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0174
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment scheduledCase summary:(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0173
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment scheduledCase summary:(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0172
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) that the collective proceedings should not be brought on an opt-out basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0043
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment scheduledCase summary:(1) Was it procedurally unfair for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to deprive Mr Kolicaj of his British citizenship without affording him an opportunity to make representations? (2) Did the Court of Appeal act in excess of jurisdiction by quashing the deprivation order made against Mr Kolicaj?
Last updated: 12 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0175
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment scheduledCase summary:(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked casesLast updated: 12 December 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.