Visit JCPCAll cases
1404 Cases
UKSC/2025/0151
•
COMMERCIAL
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Is FitzWalter Capital Partners (Financial Trading) Limited (a party related to the Respondent) a “financial institution” capable of being assigned loans and security rights within the terms of this loan agreement?
Last updated: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0179
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0043
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase 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: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0005
•
EU LAW
Hearing listedCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that (A) whether the claims are time-barred has not been finally determined in the Prudential test case, and should be determined in the present proceedings by applying the law as it stands now (“Limitation Issue”); (B) GREA is not entitled to a claim in restitution for payment of unlawful advance corporation tax utilised against lawful tax or repaid before the issue of its claim (“Set-off Issue”); and (C) by 1 April 2010, the Appellants had not pleaded a claim in restitution for the recovery of unlawful tax paid as a result of their inability to offset unused double taxation relief credit (“Pleading Issue”)?
Last updated: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0145
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:What is the correct approach that UK courts should adopt when determining fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms for global portfolio licences of standard essential patents? Did the Court of Appeal err in reaching its own determination of the FRAND rate in this case, instead of remitting the matter for re-assessment? Did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the question of payment of royalties on past sales in FRAND licences? Did the Court of Appeal err in its consideration of the effects of parallel foreign patent infringement proceedings?
Linked casesLast updated: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0144
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:What is the correct approach that UK courts should adopt when determining fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms for global portfolio licences of standard essential patents? Did the Court of Appeal err in reaching its own determination of the FRAND rate in this case, instead of remitting the matter for re-assessment? Did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the question of payment of royalties on past sales in FRAND licences? Did the Court of Appeal err in its consideration of the effects of parallel foreign patent infringement proceedings?
Linked casesLast updated: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0164
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:What is the correct test the courts should adopt when applying the “Ouster Principle” in the context of determining whether a purported easement is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant (and therefore valid)?
Last updated: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0125
•
NEGLIGENCE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase 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: 30 October 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: 30 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0178
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 29 October 2025
UKSC/2024/0048
•
TAX
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err: (i) in its conclusions as to the objective and correct interpretation of the legislation applicable to determining whether the Trust was a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax (“VAT”). (ii) in its understanding of the facts that need to be proved in order to determine whether there is a significant distortion of competition under the applicable legislation.
Last updated: 29 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0002
•
NEGLIGENCE
Hearing listedCase summary:Does the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 entitle the relatives of a deceased person to claim damages following his death from asbestos-related mesothelioma, notwithstanding the prior settlement of a separate claim brought by the deceased for other asbestos-related injuries?
Last updated: 28 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0170
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Is the lessee under an unregistered long lease a qualifying tenant within the meaning of s75 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, so that they should be served with a ‘participation notice’ before a right to manage company claims the right to manage the block of flats? (2) Does the failure to serve a participation notice on a qualifying tenant invalidate a claim notice served by the right to manage company?
Last updated: 27 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0157
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Does paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”) preclude the recovery of legal or professional costs by way of service charge from leaseholders holding a qualifying lease where those costs were incurred before the BSA 2022 came into effect?
Last updated: 24 October 2025
UKSC/2025/0105
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting hearing dateCase summary:Was the Secretary of State (“SSEFRA”) wrong to approve a compulsory purchase order in a form in which the rights authorised to be compulsorily acquired appear to include an unbounded private law right to discharge “water, soil and effluent” into a canal, even where the discharge occurs in such a way as to amount to a criminal offence and/or a nuisance?
Last updated: 24 October 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.