Visit JCPCAll cases
1432 Cases
UKSC/2025/0177
•
ARBITRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase 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: 22 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0205
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 22 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0204
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 22 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0197
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 22 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0094/A
•
INSOLVENCY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Can a bankruptcy petition be founded on a foreign judgment which has not been recognised in England and Wales? Should the Court of Appeal have ordered that the Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the Set Aside Application and Petition, and on an indemnity basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 19 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0180
•
EMPLOYMENT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal amount to a breach of the Appellant’s rights to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and/or was it obtained as a result of conduct amounting to a breach of certain fraud offences contained in the Fraud Act 2006?
Last updated: 19 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0165
•
CRIME
Hearing listedCase summary:Did individuals charged with an offence contrary to section 78(1) and (4) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Act 2022 (“the 2022 Act”) of the 2022 Act have “no case to answer”, on the basis that there was no evidence before the jury of an essential element of the offence?
Last updated: 19 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0203
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 19 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0202
•
FAMILY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 19 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0149
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Does a director’s duty to act in “good faith” in the best interests of a company under s172(1) Companies Act 2006 require them to act in a way that is objectively honest, or does it suffice that the director subjectively believed that what they were doing was in the best interests of the company?
Last updated: 19 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0193
•
FAMILY
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Last updated: 18 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0179
•
FAMILY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:This case concerns an application for leave to apply for financial relief in England and Wales following a divorce in Russia, under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (the “1984 Act”). The issues to be decided are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to: i) Set aside the High Court’s decision to refuse the wife leave to apply for financial relief under the 1984 Act. ii) Grant the wife leave under the 1984 Act.
Last updated: 18 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0173
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase 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: 18 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0174
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase 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: 18 December 2025
UKSC/2023/0175
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase 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: 18 December 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.