Visit JCPCAll cases
1432 Cases
UKSC/2025/0143
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Permission to Appeal grantedCase 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: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0178
•
COMMERCIAL
Permission to Appeal grantedCase 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: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0189
•
INSOLVENCY
Appeal issuedCase summary:These cases raise three main issues: (i) whether an agent can provide signed writing for the purposes of section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA 1925”); (ii) whether a company can provide signed writing for the purposes of section 53(1)(b) without executing a document or through the signature of an individual acting on behalf of a corporate attorney by combined effect of 74(3) and (4) LPA 1925; and (iii) whether a transaction was at an undervalue within the scope of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”).
Linked casesLast updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0175
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Does the killing by British soldiers of the Appellant’s father in 1978 fall within the temporal scope of the Human Rights Act 1998? Did the Ministry of Defence act irrationally in delaying in the disclosure of evidence in the inquest?
Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0188
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Does the procedural/investigative obligation arising under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) apply to the inquest into the death of the appellant’s son, who was killed by British soldiers in 1986, as a matter of UK domestic law? Did the Judge err in dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review? Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the Judge’s order?
Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0192
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Was the decision of the Secretary of State to cancel the appellant’s leave to remain in the United Kingdom with immediate effect procedurally unfair?
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0187
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Does the failure to file and serve a notice identifying the grounds on which the claimant is entitled to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction, as required under Rule 6.34(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), render the service of the claim form invalid? Can the Court give retrospective permission under Rule 6.34(2)(b) to validate service of a claim form outside the jurisdiction where the claimant has not complied with Rule 6.34(1)?
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0185
•
PRIVACY AND INFORMATION
Permission to Appeal grantedCase summary:Does a threshold of seriousness apply to claims for damages under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 2018”)?
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0183
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Did the courts below take the wrong approach to determining whether the respondent is suitable to be appointed as the representative party in group proceedings?
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0176
•
ARBITRATION
Permission to Appeal grantedCase 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 casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0181
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:In what circumstances should a court conduct a hearing of an application to set aside a freezing order prior to the substantive trial? Was the Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with the trial judge’s decision to order a 5-day hearing of Appellant’s application to set aside a freezing order?
Last updated: 23 December 2025
UKSC/2025/0169
•
INSOLVENCY
Case closedCase summary:What is the correct approach to the treatment of creditors who would be “out of the money” (would not receive a payout) in the “relevant alternative” to a restructuring plan sanctioned under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006?
Last updated: 23 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: 23 December 2025
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
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.