Visit JCPCAll cases
1575 Cases
UKSC/2026/0141
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0140
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2024/0159
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 33Case summary:Does a car dealer who receives a commission from a lender for arranging finance in a tripartite transaction between customer, dealer, and lender in which a car is bought on credit owe a duty to the buyer of the car such as to enable that buyer (absent the requisite level of disclosure) to bring a claim against the lender for bribery or dishonest assistance, or under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “CCA”)? The appeal requires the determination of the following sub-issues: (i) Does, or should, the law recognise a distinct tort of bribery? (ii) If such a tort is recognised, what is the nature of the duty or relationship (here between dealer and customer) that must exist in order for the tort to be engaged? (iii) Relatedly, what level of disclosure will prevent liability for bribery from arising? (iv) In Mr Johnson’s case, was the relationship between customer and lender “unfair” for the purposes of the CCA?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2024/0158
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 33Case summary:The appeal requires the determination of the following sub-issues: (i) Does, or should, the law recognise a distinct tort of bribery? (ii) If such a tort is recognised, what is the nature of the duty or relationship (here between dealer and customer) that must exist in order for the tort to be engaged? (iii) Relatedly, what level of disclosure will prevent liability for bribery from arising? (iv) In Mr Johnson’s case, was the relationship between customer and lender “unfair” for the purposes of the CCA?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2024/0157
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 33Case summary:Does a car dealer who receives a commission from a lender for arranging finance in a tripartite transaction between customer, dealer, and lender in which a car is bought on credit owe a duty to the buyer of the car such as to enable that buyer (absent the requisite level of disclosure) to bring a claim against the lender for bribery or dishonest assistance, or under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “CCA”)? The appeal requires the determination of the following sub-issues: (i) Does, or should, the law recognise a distinct tort of bribery? (ii) If such a tort is recognised, what is the nature of the duty or relationship (here between dealer and customer) that must exist in order for the tort to be engaged? (iii) Relatedly, what level of disclosure will prevent liability for bribery from arising? (iv) In Mr Johnson’s case, was the relationship between customer and lender “unfair” for the purposes of the CCA?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2023/0177
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) that the collective proceedings should not be brought on an opt-out basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2023/0176
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) that the collective proceedings should not be brought on an opt-out basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2023/0175
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) that the collective proceedings should not be brought on an opt-out basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2023/0174
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) that the collective proceedings should not be brought on an opt-out basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2023/0173
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) that the collective proceedings should not be brought on an opt-out basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2023/0172
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment given[2025] UKSC 48Case summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) that the collective proceedings should not be brought on an opt-out basis?
Linked casesLast updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0139
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0138
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2025/0081
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Judgment given[2026] UKSC 33Case summary:In what circumstances can a party to a contract recover damages for a breach of that contract in respect of losses that were sustained not by the contracting party itself but by its subsidiary?
Last updated: 18 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0052
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Hearing listedCase summary:The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 regulates the circumstances in which the freeholder of a residential building may sell their freehold to a third party. The Act gives a buildings’ leaseholders the right to purchaase the building’s freehold by matching any purchase price the freeholder agrees with a third party. S. 5(3) of the Act states that, where a freeholder proposes to sell the freehold of more than one building at the same time, each building’s leaseholders must separately be given the opportunity to purchase their building’s leasehold. What does s. 5(3) mean by a ‘building’?
Last updated: 17 September 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.