Visit JCPCAll cases
1566 Cases
UKSC/2026/0056
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:In 2025 the government introduced VAT on private school fees. The appellants are religious private schools, their pupils, and their pupils’ parents. Was the introduction of VAT on private school fees compatible with the appellants’ right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, and to education under Article 2 of Protocol 2 of the Convention?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0045
•
TAX
Hearing listedCase summary:In 2025 the government introduced VAT on private school fees. The appellants are religious private schools, their pupils, and their pupils’ parents. Was the introduction of VAT on private school fees compatible with the appellants’ right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, and to education under Article 2 of Protocol 2 of the Convention?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0177
•
ARBITRATION
Hearing listedCase summary:Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0176
•
ARBITRATION
Hearing listedCase summary:Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?
Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2024/0075
•
TORT
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 43Case summary:(1) When is a former director of a company liable as an intermeddler? (2) Is the original transfer of Shares to the Company subject to an unpaid vendor’s lien? (3) Is the quantum of equitable compensation for misappropriated property to be ascertained by reference to the date of misappropriation or the date of judgment? (4) Which party bears the burden for proving that the claimant has or has not suffered loss on a counterfactual scenario?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2024/0076
•
TORT
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 43Case summary:(1) When is a former director of a company liable as an intermeddler? (2) Is the original transfer of Shares to the Company subject to an unpaid vendor’s lien? (3) Is the quantum of equitable compensation for misappropriated property to be ascertained by reference to the date of misappropriation or the date of judgment? (4) Which party bears the burden for proving that the claimant has or has not suffered loss on a counterfactual scenario?
Last updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0156
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase summary:(1) Did the Court of Appeal take the wrong approach to whether it was ‘just and equitable’ to make a remediation contribution order under s124 Building Safety Act 2022? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that a remediation contribution order under s124 Building Safety Act 2022 can be made in respect of costs incurred before that provision came into force on 28 June 2022?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0157
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase 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?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0039
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the conditions of CHK’s immigration bail do not constitute a sufficient restraint on his liberty to justify a writ of habeas corpus? Did the Court of Appeal err in ordering CHK to pay the respondent’s costs?
Last updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0099
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Was the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 lawful?
Last updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0012
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Whether the state is entitled, in light of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (“A1P1”), to deprive a person of their possessions in the public interest without paying, or ensuring they recover, market value for those possessions, in circumstances where the policy objective of the deprivation measure is not undermined or diminished by ensuring market value is recovered.
Last updated: 8 September 2026
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: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0143
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Hearing listedCase summary:(1) Is the Information Requirement in Article 2(1)(g)(vi) of the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 (“the 2007 Order”) satisfied where the landlord makes reference to a clause in a tenancy agreement that is not attached and which differs in numbering from the actual tenancy agreement? (2) Is the Confirmation Requirement in Article 2(1)(g)(vii) of the 2007 Order satisfied where the landlord signs a covering letter enclosing the certificate, rather than the certificate itself?
Last updated: 8 September 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: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0194
•
TORT
Hearing listedCase summary:Is the CPS advocate immune from suit in respect of anything said or done in the course of a bail hearing, including the disclosure of a vulnerable person’s confidential address to their abusive ex-partner? Does that immunity extend to the police, who included the Appellant’s address in the file for the CPS? If the common law immunity does exist and apply, does it bar claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Data Protection Act 2018? Did the Court of Appeal err in reinstating the summary disposal of the Appellant’s Human Rights Act claims?
Last updated: 8 September 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.