Visit JCPCAll cases
1427 Cases
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
UKSC/2025/0004
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that Oatly AB could not validly register POST MILK GENERATION as a trade mark as this was prohibited under Article 78(2) and Part III of Annex VII of EU Regulation 1308/2013?
Last updated: 11 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0200
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 11 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0002
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase 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: 11 December 2025
UKSC/2024/0116
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary: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?
Last updated: 11 December 2025
UKSC/2024/0083
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment scheduledCase summary:What is the correct test to be applied when a court judicially reviews a decision by a coroner to disclose gists of information over which Public Interest Immunity (“PII”) is asserted by a Minister on behalf of the Crown?
Last updated: 11 December 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.