Visit JCPCAll cases
1477 Cases
UKSC/2026/0044
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 April 2026
UKSC/2025/0039
•
FAMILY
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Does a court have jurisdiction to set aside a valid adoption order other than by way of appeal?
Last updated: 13 April 2026
UKSC/2025/0068
•
COMMERCIAL
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Do 'furlough' payments paid by the UK Government under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) to policyholders fall to be deducted from the amounts otherwise payable by insurers in claims for "business interruption" losses suffered because of the Covid-19 pandemic?
Linked casesLast updated: 13 April 2026
UKSC/2025/0067
•
COMMERCIAL
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Do 'furlough' payments paid by the UK Government under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) to policyholders fall to be deducted from the amounts otherwise payable by insurers in claims for "business interruption" losses suffered because of the Covid-19 pandemic?
Linked casesLast updated: 13 April 2026
UKSC/2026/0043
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 April 2026
UKSC/2022/0078
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Is applying a lower threshold test for the recall of prisoners on licence who are subject to a "determinate custodial sentence", such as the Appellant, than is applied for the recall of prisoners subject to other allegedly comparable types of sentence discriminatory and a breach of the Appellant's rights under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) read with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)?
Last updated: 10 April 2026
UKSC/2023/0105
•
IMMIGRATION
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/2023/0097
•
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/2023/0096
•
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/2023/0095
•
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/2023/0094
•
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/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
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.