Visit JCPCAll cases
1475 Cases
UKSC/2023/0093
•
Judgment givenCase summary:The Supreme Court is asked to decide the following legal questions: Did the Divisional Court apply the wrong test when determining whether removal to Rwanda would breach article 3? If the Divisional Court applied the right test, was the Court of Appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that Rwanda was a safe third country? If the Divisional Court applied the wrong test or there was another basis for interfering with its conclusion, was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that Rwanda was not a safe third country because asylum seekers would face a real risk of refoulement? Did the Home Secretary fail to discharge her procedural obligation under article 3 to undertake a thorough examination of Rwanda's asylum procedures to determine whether they adequately protect asylum seekers against the risk of refoulement? Were there substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 in Rwanda itself, in addition to the risk of refoulement? Does the Asylum Procedures Directive continue to have effect as retained EU law? This is relevant because the Directive only permits asylum seekers to be removed to a safe third country if they have some connection to it. None of the claimants has any connection to Rwanda.
Linked casesLast updated: 10 April 2026
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: 10 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0147
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:What does a claimant need to demonstrate to rely on section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 in a claim for malicious falsehood?
Last updated: 10 April 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: 10 April 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: 10 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0149
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:In each of the appeals, is it arguable that the local authority Appellant owed the Respondent (a minor at the relevant times) a common law duty of care to protect them from harm on the basis that the Respondent had assumed responsibility to protect them from such harm?
Linked casesLast updated: 9 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0148
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:In each of the appeals, is it arguable that the local authority Appellant owed the Respondent (a minor at the relevant times) a common law duty of care to protect them from harm on the basis that the Respondent had assumed responsibility to protect them from such harm?
Linked casesLast updated: 9 April 2026
UKSC/2021/0130
•
FAMILY
Judgment givenCase summary:Should the court have granted the wife permission to apply for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984?
Last updated: 9 April 2026
UKSC/2025/0069
•
TAX
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Do costs incurred on surveys and studies during the development of windfarms qualify for capital allowances under section 11(4) Capital Allowances Act 2001?
Last updated: 9 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0135
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:This case is about whether the Court of Appeal was correct to strike out a defamation claim as an abuse of process. The UKSC is asked to decide: Whether a foreign criminal conviction which a claimant did not have a full opportunity to contest was a relevant factor in showing that English proceedings which require determination of the same issues as those before the foreign criminal court are an abuse of process? Are prior press publications of defamatory allegations admissible evidence of bad reputation in this context if such publications have taken place some months prior to the publication complained of and are uncontradicted by a successful claim for libel? Can potential difficulties which the Respondent may have in proving the truth of the allegations which it had published about the conduct of the Appellant some 50 years ago be a relevant factor supporting a finding of abuse? Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that a combination of partial aspects of the Hunter and Jameel abuse jurisdictions, none of which necessarily amount to abuse on its own, can properly ground a finding of abuse of process?
Last updated: 9 April 2026
UKSC/2025/0178
•
COMMERCIAL
Hearing listedCase summary:Does the obligation on the seller to pay “due compensation” in Clause 14 of the SALEFORM 2012 standard form contract entitle the buyer to loss of bargain compensation?
Last updated: 8 April 2026
UKSC/2023/0006
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Under section 13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005, can a minister only suspend a public inquiry where they take the view that it is necessary for the completion of an investigation or civil or criminal proceedings?
Last updated: 8 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0183
•
TAX
Judgment givenCase summary:This case concerns s. 1219 of the Corporation Tax Act ("CTA") 2009 which enables a company with an investment business to deduct the expenses of management of that business in calculating its profits for the purpose of determining its liability to corporation tax. The first issue is what is the correct way to identify expenses of management of an investment business which are of "a capital nature" and therefore excluded from corporation tax deductions. The second issue is whether the disputed expenses in question in this case were "expenses of a capital nature".
Last updated: 8 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0181
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:1) Does Article 6(1) ECHR apply to QX's challenge to the Temporary Exclusion Order ("TEO") placed upon him by the SSHD? Did the first instance Judge err in law in holding that QX was not entitled to disclosure of the kind described in AF (No 3) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 28; [2012] 2 AC 269 ("AF No. 3") in relation to his challenge to the SSHD's determination of Conditions A and B when imposing the TEO?2) What is the role of the Court in determining a challenge to the SSHD's decision to impose a TEO? Does the Court of Appeal have the power to make the factual assessment of terrorist-related activity for itself, or is it limited to an administrative review of the decision made by the SSHD?
Last updated: 8 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0172
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Where a contractual force majeure clause contains a proviso requiring the party which is affected by force majeure to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome it, can the proviso require the affected party to agree to accept a non-contractual performance?
Last updated: 7 April 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.