Visit JCPCAll cases
1418 Cases
UKSC/2025/0150
•
ARBITRATION
Awaiting hearing dateCase summary:Can the English courts grant an injunction to restrain proceedings brought under the New York Convention in a foreign court that ostensibly seek partial recognition and enforcement of a London-seated arbitral award?
Last updated: 27 November 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: 27 November 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: 27 November 2025
UKSC/2025/0176
•
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 casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 27 November 2025
UKSC/2021/0147
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Judgment givenCase summary:What is the nature and extent of the liability of a director, or senior executive employee, for causing a company to commit a civil wrong, for which a claim can be brought without a finding of fault by the wrongdoer (e.g. a ‘strict liability tort’)? Here, the strict liability tort was trademark infringement. If a director is legally responsible for the tort, can they be ordered to pay profits made as a result of the tort to the wronged part (e.g. a ‘account of profits’), even if those profits were not personally received? Does this extend to the director paying back the portion of their salary that was attributable to the tort?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2021/0078
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Are litigation funding agreements ("LFAs") pursuant to which the funder is entitled to recover a percentage of any damages recovered "damages-based agreements" ("DBAs") within the meaning of the legislation which regulates such agreements?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2021/0089
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal wrongly find the appellant, part of the Jehovah's Witness organisation, to be vicariously liable for a rape committed by one of their elders?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2021/0150
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:What is the nature and extent of the liability of a director, or senior executive employee, for causing a company to commit a civil wrong, for which a claim can be brought without a finding of fault by the wrongdoer (e.g. a ‘strict liability tort’)? Here, the strict liability tort was trademark infringement.If a director is legally responsible for the tort, can they be ordered to pay profits made as a result of the tort to the wronged part (e.g. a ‘account of profits’), even if those profits were not personally received? Does this extend to the director paying back the portion of their salary that was attributable to the tort?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2022/0046
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Does the court have the power to grant "newcomer injunctions", i.e. injunctions against persons who are unknown and unidentified as at the date of the order, and who have not yet performed, or threatened to perform, the acts which the injunction prohibits? If so, on what basis and subject to what safeguards?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2020/0199
•
TORT
WithdrawnCase summary:(1) Can a civil wrong constitute an unlawful means for the purposes of unlawful means conspiracy? (2) If civil wrongs can constitute an unlawful means, must the defendant know that the agreed action is unlawful for liability to arise? (3) If civil wrongs can constitute an unlawful means, can a breach of a third-party contract constitute an unlawful means for the purposes of unlawful means conspiracy? (4) Did the Key Raceday Triggers, as provided to SIS by the Tote, have the necessary quality of confidence? (5) Were the Key Raceday Triggers imparted to SIS by the Tote in circumstances importing a duty of confidence? (6) Did the Tote, in exceeding the terms of its contractual licence, thereby commit a breach of contract (as well as a trespass)?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2022/0007
•
TAX
Judgment givenCase summary:Was the right or opportunity for Mr Noble to acquire the 2007 Option (a) available by reason of his directorship of VHL (section 471(1) ITEPA); or (b) made available by Mr Noble’s employer (section 471(3) ITEPA), thereby subjecting it to income tax under Chapter 5, Part 7 of ITEPA?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2022/0056
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether Section 30 of the Counter Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 is incompatible with Articles 5 and/or 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the 'ECHR'). If so, what (if any) remedy is appropriate.
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2022/0075
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Does the Quincecare duty have any application in a case where the relevant payment instruction was not issued to the bank by an agent of the bank’s customer?(2) If not, should either (i) the Quincecare duty be extended so as to include the obligations contended for by Mrs Philipp in relation to authorised push payment fraud, or (ii) the law recognise or impose such obligations on a paying bank as incidents of its duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in and about executing an instruction?(3) Should the Court determine issues 1 and/or 2 above on a summary judgment and/or strike-out application?
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2021/0144
•
TAX
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Supreme Court should depart from the judgment of the House of Lords in James Buchanan & Co. Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd. [1978] AC 141 ("Buchanan") and hold that excise duty payable in respect of goods which are stolen in the course of international carriage by road cannot be claimed under article 23.44 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 1956 (the "CMR").
Last updated: 26 November 2025
UKSC/2021/0087
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether Part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Last updated: 26 November 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.