Visit JCPCAll cases
1590 Cases
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: 16 October 2026
UKSC/2023/0047
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Judgment given[2024] UKSC 27Case summary:Does a failure to serve a claim notice on an intermediate landlord with no management responsibilities invalidate a right to manage claim under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002?
Last updated: 16 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0155
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 16 October 2026
UKSC/2025/0162
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(1) Is the exercise of the Attorney General’s power to allow or refuse to allow an application to be made for an inquest to be re-opened amenable to Judicial Review? (2) If so, on what grounds may the Attorney General’s exercise of that power be reviewed?
Last updated: 15 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0119
•
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING
Hearing listedCase summary:Do the specified non-scheduled works on Phase One of High Speed 2 (the Bromford Tunnel Extension and Bromford Tunnel Extension Portal) benefit from deemed planning permission because they are “covered” by an Environmental Statement for the purposes of s20(2)(c) High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017?
Linked casesLast updated: 15 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0118
•
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING
Hearing listedCase summary:Do the specified non-scheduled works on Phase One of High Speed 2 (the Bromford Tunnel Extension and Bromford Tunnel Extension Portal) benefit from deemed planning permission because they are “covered” by an Environmental Statement for the purposes of s20(2)(c) High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017?
Linked casesLast updated: 15 October 2026
UKSC/2025/0047
•
TAX
Judgment scheduled[2026] UKSC 35Case summary:Does the rule preventing the deduction of penalty payments for the purpose of calculating taxable profits encompass payments made to consumers/consumer organisations in settlement of regulatory investigations?
Last updated: 15 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0136
•
COMMERCIAL
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in refusing to admit further evidence or remit the case for reconsideration, given developments in Palestinian law following the first-instance judgment?
Last updated: 15 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0154
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 15 October 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: 14 October 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: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0146
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Case summary:Linked casesLast updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0152
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Linked casesLast updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0062
•
CRIME
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Were the directions given to the jury by the trial judge in this case right in law? Did the Court of Appeal correctly understand and apply R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38, and should the Supreme Court reconsider that decision?
Last updated: 14 October 2026
UKSC/2026/0153
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 October 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.