Visit JCPCAll cases
1588 Cases
UKSC/2026/0011
•
TAX
Hearing listedCase summary:When a taxpayer appeals against an HMRC penalty on the basis that the underlying tax claimed is not owed, does the burden rest on the taxpayer to prove that he or she is not liable to pay the underlying tax?
Last updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2025/0091
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:In summary, did the Court of Appeal err by: (1) Concluding that the ministerial advice was deficient, in a way which failed to apply the correct standard of Wednesbury irrationality; and then not permitting the Appellant to reconsider the decision in light of full and fresh advice from officials addressing the matters identified by the Court of Appeal. (2) Assuming the role of decision-maker in this case and overstepping its constitutional boundaries. (3) Failing to properly consider what is characterised as the ‘floodgates argument’. (4) Taking into account its recent decision in Dillon, despite that decision being subject of an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court, and the relevant part of the decision being a section 4 Human Rights Act (“HRA”) declaration that did not change the law. (5) Ignoring the scheme for remedial action under the HRA, and or the Appellant’s appeal rights in relation to Dillon. (6) Concluding, in both its consideration of the substantive appeal and in relation to remedy, that this case was an exceptional one that could be distinguished from other similar Troubles related cases. (7) Concluding that the choice faced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (“SOSNI”), when considering the appropriate investigative mechanism to discharge the Article 2 European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) investigative obligation, was a “binary one” meaning that the only lawful option available was to order a Public Inquiry. (8) Then ordering the mandatory holding of a public inquiry.
Last updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0118
•
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING
Hearing listedCase summary:Do the specified non-scheduled works on Phase One of High Speed 2 (the Bromford Tunnel Extension and Bromford Tunnel Extension Portal) benefit from deemed planning permission because they are “covered” by an Environmental Statement for the purposes of s20(2)(c) High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017?
Linked casesLast updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0119
•
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING
Hearing listedCase summary:Do the specified non-scheduled works on Phase One of High Speed 2 (the Bromford Tunnel Extension and Bromford Tunnel Extension Portal) benefit from deemed planning permission because they are “covered” by an Environmental Statement for the purposes of s20(2)(c) High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017?
Linked casesLast updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0146
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Case summary:Linked casesLast updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0152
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Linked casesLast updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0062
•
CRIME
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Were the directions given to the jury by the trial judge in this case right in law? Did the Court of Appeal correctly understand and apply R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38, and should the Supreme Court reconsider that decision?
Last updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0153
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0116
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:1) Where a person was recognised as a refugee on the basis of one reason (“Reason 1”), but they seek to rely on a second reason (“Reason 2”) to resist revocation of their refugee status, who bears the burden of proof in respect of Reason 2? 2) Where the Upper Tribunal had misunderstood which risk category of the relevant country guidance the Appellant was claiming to be within, was the Court of Appeal entitled to hold that this was not a material error?
Last updated: 13 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0106
•
FAMILY
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland to deny the Appellant father’s application for a Residence Order in respect of the subject child, NI: (i) legally erroneous; (ii) procedurally unfair; or (iii) affected by demonstrable bias in favour of the Respondent mother?
Last updated: 13 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0113
•
TORT
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:1) Did ZZZ remain a lawful visitor to whom a duty of care is owed under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, or did he become a trespasser when he engaged in intoxicated horseplay on the second-floor landing from which he subsequently fell? 2) Should the damages that ZZZ received have been subject to a reduction for contributory negligence?
Last updated: 13 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0114
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:What is the correct standard of proof for determining whether an individual can access state protection in their home state, for the purposes of establishing whether their deportation would be a breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?
Last updated: 13 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0126
•
EMPLOYMENT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Is a contractual scheme, entitling a company to recover training costs from an employee after that employee has terminated their employment relationship with the business, unenforceable as an unlawful restraint of trade?
Last updated: 13 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0131
•
COMMERCIAL
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Issue: (i) where a mortgagee, by its conduct, has a substantial or operative causal effect in preventing/delaying a mortgagor from redeeming a loan, in what circumstances will equity intervene to make a special order as to interest and thereby disallow interest that is said to have accrued; and (ii) whether a default interest rate in a facility of 4% per month compounded monthly (equivalent to approximately 60% per annum), which is triggered by heterogeneous events of default, is an unenforceable penalty within the meaning of Cavendish Square Holding BV-v-Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67.
Last updated: 13 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0108
•
FAMILY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:1. What is a “judgment” for the purposes of s.40 Constitutional Reform Act 2005? 2. Is a totally without merit certification valid where a jurisdictional objection has been raised but never determined?
Last updated: 13 October 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.