Visit JCPCAll cases
1604 Cases
UKSC/2026/0012
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing in progressCase 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 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0133
•
EU LAW
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Do an Immigration Officer’s words - “You can go” - amount to facilitation by the UK of the Appellant’s residence in accordance with national legislation, as required by Article 10(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement? (2) Does the same satisfy the condition in Article 18(1)(1)(iv) of the Withdrawal Agreement?
Last updated: 9 November 2026
UKSC/2025/0091
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting judgmentCase 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: 8 November 2026
UKSC/2025/0194
•
TORT
Awaiting judgmentCase 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: 6 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0114
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal grantedCase summary:What is the correct standard of proof for determining whether an individual can access state protection in their home state, for the purposes of establishing whether their deportation would be a breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?
Last updated: 6 November 2026
UKSC/2025/0047
•
TAX
Judgment given[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: 6 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0099
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Was the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 lawful?
Last updated: 6 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0169
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 5 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0168
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 4 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0167
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 4 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0152
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Where the SSHD is assessing revocation of a sponsor licence based on alleged dishonest conduct, does she need to make an express allegation of dishonesty to the sponsor - so they can make submissions in response - for any corresponding revocation to be procedurally fair?
Linked casesLast updated: 4 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0146
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Case summary:Must a court nevertheless refuse relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where there has been a finding of procedural unfairness because it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different without the unfairness?
Linked casesLast updated: 4 November 2026
UKSC/2015/0015
•
CRIME
Judgment given[2016] UKSC 8Case summary:Whether the prosecution must prove that a secondary offender, who encouraged the primary offender to commit some harm, foresaw the primary offender’s acquisition and use of a weapon for murder as “probable” rather than “possible” in order to establish joint enterprise.
Linked casesLast updated: 4 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0128
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal grantedCase summary:(1) What is the correct test in law for the “very compelling circumstances” element of s.117C(6) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002? (2) When can a party revive an argument which has been withdrawn in a court below?
Last updated: 4 November 2026
UKSC/2026/0116
•
IMMIGRATION
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:1) Where a person was recognised as a refugee on the basis of one reason (“Reason 1”), but they seek to rely on a second reason (“Reason 2”) to resist revocation of their refugee status, who bears the burden of proof in respect of Reason 2? 2) Where the Upper Tribunal had misunderstood which risk category of the relevant country guidance the Appellant was claiming to be within, was the Court of Appeal entitled to hold that this was not a material error?
Last updated: 4 November 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.