Visit JCPCAll cases
1567 Cases
UKSC/2026/0022
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the appellant breach s151 Greater London Authority Act 1999 by deciding to remove a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme which had been included in its approved local implementation plan for the delivery of the Mayor of London’s transport strategy in its area?
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0095
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment given[2009] UKSC 16Case summary:(1) What are the rules of construction in interpreting the immigration rules? (2) The extent to which maintenance or support may be supplied by a third party; that is a person other than the immigrant themselves or their sponsor.
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0002
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 45Case summary:Does the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 entitle the relatives of a deceased person to claim damages following his death from asbestos-related mesothelioma, notwithstanding the prior settlement of a separate claim brought by the deceased for other asbestos-related injuries?
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0084
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment given[2009] UKSC 16Case summary:(1) Is the 'maintenance' criterion in paragraph 281(v) of the Immigration Rules to be regarded as satisfied where a third party, as opposed to the applicant and/or the relevant sponsor, undertakes to provide ongoing financial support to the party seeking entry clearance? (2) Does article 8 and/or article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights require that: (i) an exception be provided to paragraph 281(v) where the spouse (who is also the sponsor) of the party seeking entry is unable to work due to disability; or (ii) the rule that the parties must be able to maintain themselves from their own funds be relaxed to allow such parties to rely upon third party funding for maintenance?
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0085
•
IMMIGRATION
Judgment given[2009] UKSC 16Case summary:Whether a sponsoring relative who wishes to bring a parent, grandparent or other dependent relative for settlement to the UK can rely on third party financial support in order to satisfy para 317(iii) and 317(iva) of HC 395, or whether the immigration rules preclude such third party support.
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0133
•
EU LAW
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0080
•
FAMILY
Judgment given[2026] UKSC 32Case summary:Can the views of a child be taken into account when considering whether the defence under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) is made out? Were the Inner House correct to override the Outer House’s decision as to whether the child concerned should be returned?
Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0074
•
FAMILY
Judgment given[2026] UKSC 32Case summary:Can the views of a child be taken into account when considering whether the defence under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) is made out? Were the Inner House correct to override the Outer House’s decision as to whether the child concerned should be returned?
Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2020/0103
•
CRIME
Judgment given[2022] UKSC 13Case summary:(1) Whether the term "proceedings" should be confined to court proceedings in the context of considering reductions to defendants’ sentences when they plead guilty to a crime at an early stage. (2) Whether such reductions to sentences may be reduced where the defendant is caught "red handed".
Last updated: 9 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0056
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:In 2025 the government introduced VAT on private school fees. The appellants are religious private schools, their pupils, and their pupils’ parents. Was the introduction of VAT on private school fees compatible with the appellants’ right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, and to education under Article 2 of Protocol 2 of the Convention?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0045
•
TAX
Hearing listedCase summary:In 2025 the government introduced VAT on private school fees. The appellants are religious private schools, their pupils, and their pupils’ parents. Was the introduction of VAT on private school fees compatible with the appellants’ right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, and to education under Article 2 of Protocol 2 of the Convention?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0177
•
ARBITRATION
Hearing listedCase 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: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0176
•
ARBITRATION
Hearing listedCase 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: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2024/0075
•
TORT
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 43Case summary:(1) When is a former director of a company liable as an intermeddler? (2) Is the original transfer of Shares to the Company subject to an unpaid vendor’s lien? (3) Is the quantum of equitable compensation for misappropriated property to be ascertained by reference to the date of misappropriation or the date of judgment? (4) Which party bears the burden for proving that the claimant has or has not suffered loss on a counterfactual scenario?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 September 2026
UKSC/2024/0076
•
TORT
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 43Case summary:(1) When is a former director of a company liable as an intermeddler? (2) Is the original transfer of Shares to the Company subject to an unpaid vendor’s lien? (3) Is the quantum of equitable compensation for misappropriated property to be ascertained by reference to the date of misappropriation or the date of judgment? (4) Which party bears the burden for proving that the claimant has or has not suffered loss on a counterfactual scenario?
Last updated: 8 September 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.