Visit JCPCAll cases
1526 Cases
UKSC/2025/0091
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting hearing dateCase 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: 7 July 2026
UKSC/2025/0165
•
CRIME
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Does obstructing access to, and exit from, a private site by blocking a private road leading up to it involve an interference with “rights that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large” for the purposes of the statutory offence of public nuisance?
Last updated: 7 July 2026
UKSC/2026/0040
•
TAX
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Whether a property owner can be liable for non-domestic rates (“NDR”) even though it has entered into a tenancy agreement with a solvent tenant that is thereby entitled to possession of the property.
Last updated: 7 July 2026
UKSC/2026/0078
•
COMMERCIAL
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:For a defendant to successfully rely on a defence of pass-on to a claim brought for the recovery of losses incurred as a result of an unlawful cartel, must the court insist that the defendant prove a direct causal link between the cartel overcharge and increases in the claimants’ prices?
Last updated: 7 July 2026
UKSC/2026/0074
•
FAMILY
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 7 July 2026
UKSC/2026/0080
•
FAMILY
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 7 July 2026
UKSC/2025/0034
•
EU LAW
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Absent a contrary agreement, does section 13 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA”) prevent an arbitral tribunal from awarding (i) an injunction, and (ii) equitable damages, against a State for its breach of an equitable obligation to arbitrate? Can an arbitral tribunal award equitable compensation against a State for such a breach?
Linked casesLast updated: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2025/0138
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Issue 1: What is the meaning and substance of “detention at His Majesty’s pleasure”, the mandatory sentence for those who commit murder while they are children under the age of 18, as provided for by section 259 of the Sentencing Act 2020? Issue 2: Is section 128 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which inserted sections 27A and 27B into the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, compatible with articles 5, 7, and 14 (read with article 5), of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Last updated: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2024/0130
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2026] UKSC 1Case summary:In relation to a contract based on the 2016 edition of the JCT Design and Build Contract, whether – properly construed – a right to terminate under clause 8.9.3 must first have accrued before a contractor can have any right to terminate under clause 8.9.4.
Last updated: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2025/0005
•
EU LAW
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2025/0170
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Hearing listedCase 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: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2025/0058/A
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:(1) Do the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to determine disputes as to what licence terms are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory at the request of an implementor rather than a patent owner, where the licence is offered by an intermediary as part of a pool or platform of patents? (2) What is the scope of the rule of civil procedure concerning the service of documents in intellectual property claims and the appropriate forum in relation to claims seeking licences under standard-essential patents?
Linked casesCross Appeal
Last updated: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2023/0177
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case 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: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2023/0176
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case 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: 6 July 2026
UKSC/2023/0175
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case 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: 6 July 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.