Visit JCPCAll cases
1566 Cases
UKSC/2009/0018
•
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 5Case summary:(1) Whether the judge was correct to conclude that the 2006 Order was unlawful insofar as it applies to HAY, and whether that conclusion is consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in A,K,M,Q & G v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187; (2) Whether the 2006 Order is unlawful because article 3(1)(b) expressly provides that its provisions apply automatically to a defined class of persons, namely all persons named on the Consolidated List maintained by the 1267 Committee; and (3) Whether the provisions of article 3(1)(b) of the 2006 Order operate contrary to a common principle of access to the court.
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0016
•
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 5Case summary:(i) Whether the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 are unlawful because they seek to restrict fundamental human rights without the express authorisation of Parliament; (ii) Whether the restriction of funds pursuant to the Orders interferes with rights pursuant to article 8 and article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in respect of G, article 6; (iii) Whether the ambit of restrictive measures in the Orders is sufficiently certain; (iv) Whether the lack of procedural measures to challenge the restrictive measures renders the scheme unlawful.
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0015
•
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 5Case summary:(i) Whether the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 are unlawful because they seek to restrict fundamental human rights without the express authorisation of Parliament; (ii) Whether the restriction of funds pursuant to the Orders interferes with rights pursuant to article 8 and article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in respect of G, article 6; (iii) Whether the ambit of restrictive measures in the Orders is sufficiently certain; (iv) Whether the lack of procedural measures to challenge the restrictive measures renders the scheme unlawful.
Linked casesLast updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0132
•
TAX
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 67Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0037
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 66Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0141
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 65Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2018/0080
•
DEVOLUTION
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 64Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0160
•
ENVIRONMENT/PLANNING
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 63Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0151
•
HOUSING, LANDLORD & TENANT
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 62Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2016/0219
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 61Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0212
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 60Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0097
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 59Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0075
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 58Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0083
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 57Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
UKSC/2017/0078
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Judgment given[2018] UKSC 56Case summary:See judgment
Last updated: 7 September 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.