Current cases

Current cases

Cases only appear here a few weeks before the appeal is due to be heard by the Court. Lists of cases seeking permission to appeal to the Court appear on the monthly lists published on our Permission to appeal page, once such an application is determined.

The abbreviations 'FC' and 'AP' stand for 'Funded Client' and 'Assisted Person' respectively. They denote a party in receipt of legal aid - the former in respect of cases from England and Wales and from Northern Ireland and the latter in respect of cases from Scotland.

The Current cases table below can be sorted either in ascending or descending order by clicking on the following title headings:

• Case ID
• Case name

Cases can also be found by using the search engine below:

Current cases

Case ID	Case name	Case summary - Issue
UKSC 2022/0080	Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Respondent) v Mercer (Appellant)	Can a worker who is subject to detriment for the purpose of preventing or deterring her participation in a union-organised industrial action can potentially bring a claim under s. 146(2)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ("TULRCA")? In particular: (i) does Article 11 ECHR protect workers in such circumstances, and can the absence of sufficient protection under s. 146 TULRCA as conventionally interpreted be justified under Article 11(2)?; and (ii) is it possible to interpret s. 146 TULRCA so as to be compatible with Article 11 pursuant to the duty in s. 3 HRA 1998, or should the court make a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to s. 4 HRA 1998?
UKSC 2022/0113	R (on the application of AM (Belarus)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
UKSC 2021/0184	Nasir (Appellant) v Zavarco Plc (Respondent)	Was the Court of Appeal wrong: (i) when it determined that the doctrine of merger did not extinguish Zavarco's cause of action in the 2016 Claim and thereby prevent pursuit of the identical cause of action in the 2018 Claim; (ii) to find that the doctrine of merger does not depend on the cause of action asserted, but instead upon the relief obtained; (iii) to find that the doctrine of merger does not apply to any judgment granting a declaration.
UKSC 2022/0127	Merticariu (Appellant) v Judecatoria Arad, Romania (Respondent)	(1) Would a requested person be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial where the law of the requesting state confers a right to retrial which depends on a finding by a judicial authority, in the requesting state, as to whether the requested person was deliberately absent from his trial? (2) Would a requested person be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial where it is not possible for a judge to say that a finding of deliberate absence by a judicial authority, in the requesting state, is "theoretical" or "so remote that it can be discounted"?
UKSC 2022/0162	Argentum Exploration Ltd (Respondent) v Republic of South Africa (Appellant)	Whether the silver and the ship carrying it fell within the following provision of the State Immunity Act 1978 s.10(4)(a): "both the cargo and the ship carrying it were, at the time when the cause of action arose, in use or intended for use for commercial purposes" such that the Republic of South Africa is not immune to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom in respect of Argentum's salvage claim.
UKSC 2022/0103	Bertino (Appellant) v Public Prosecutor's Office, Italy (Respondent)	(1) For a requested person to have deliberately absented himself from trial for the purposes of section 20(3) Extradition Act 2002, must the requesting authority prove that he has actual knowledge that he could be convicted and sentenced in absentia? (2) Where the requesting authority asserts that it can be demonstrated by inference that a requested person could reasonably foresee that he could be convicted and sentenced in absentia, must the inference be the only reasonable inference?
UKSC 2022/0100	Armstead (Appellant) v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd (Respondent)	Can the terms of a contract signed between the hirer of a motor car and the hire car company be relied upon to calculate the damages claimed by the hirer against the insurance company of a negligent driver who collided with the hire car?
UKSC 2022/0037	Kireeva (Appellant) v Bedzhamov (Respondent)	Whether the Court has the jurisdiction/power to recognise a foreign bankruptcy at common law. This depends on the nature and effect of the choice of law rule of private international law known as the "immovables rule" that, as a matter of English law, a foreign Court has no jurisdiction to make orders in respect of land situated in England and that rights relating to such land are governed exclusively by English law ("Immovables Rule").
UKSC 2022/0144 UKSC 2022/0145	In the matter of an application by RM (a person under disability) by SM, his father and next friend (AP) (Respondent) for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) In the matter of an application by RM (a person under disability) by SM, his father and next friend (AP) (Respondent) for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) No 2	Whether the Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) was entitled to conclude that RM's mental disorder continues to be of a nature or degree warranting his continued detention in hospital for medical treatment (i.e. whether the test for discharge from a Restriction Order under Article 78 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (the Order) is met).
UKSC 2022/0108	Lifestyle Equities CV and another (Respondents) v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others (Appellants)	When does the sale or advertising of trade-marked goods on a foreign website infringe the relevant trade marks in the UK or EU?
UKSC 2022/0019	Jersey Choice Ltd (Appellant) v His Majesty's Treasury (Respondent)	Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the order striking out Jersey Choice Limited's claim on the basis the pleadings disclosed no reasonable grounds?
UKSC 2022/0135	Mueen-Uddin (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)	This case is about whether the Court of Appeal was correct to strike out a defamation claim as an abuse of process. The UKSC is asked to decide: Whether a foreign criminal conviction which a claimant did not have a full opportunity to contest was a relevant factor in showing that English proceedings which require determination of the same issues as those before the foreign criminal court are an abuse of process? Are prior press publications of defamatory allegations admissible evidence of bad reputation in this context if such publications have taken place some months prior to the publication complained of and are uncontradicted by a successful claim for libel? Can potential difficulties which the Respondent may have in proving the truth of the allegations which it had published about the conduct of the Appellant some 50 years ago be a relevant factor supporting a finding of abuse? Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that a combination of partial aspects of the Hunter and Jameel abuse jurisdictions, none of which necessarily amount to abuse on its own, can properly ground a finding of abuse of process?
UKSC 2021/0130	Potanina (Respondent) v Potanin (Appellant)	Should the court have granted the wife permission to apply for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984?
UKSC 2022/0148 UKSC 2022/0149	YXA (a protected party by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (Respondent) v Wolverhampton City Council (Appellant) HXA (Respondent) v Surrey County Council (Appellant)	The central issue in this case is whether the local authority had assumed responsibility to protect a child from harm through its conduct, and therefore owed them a duty of care at common-law?
UKSC 2022/0147	George (Respondent) v Cannell and another (Appellants)	What does a claimant need to demonstrate to rely on s3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 in a claim for malicious falsehood?
UKSC 2023/0093 UKSC 2023/0094 UKSC 2023/0095 UKSC 2023/0096 UKSC 2023/0097 UKSC 2023/0105	R (on the application of AAA and others) (Respondents/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent) R (on the application of HTN (Vietnam)) (Respondent/Cross Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent) R (on the application of RM (Iran)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) R (on the application of AS (Iran)) (Respondent/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent) R (on the application of SAA (Sudan)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) R (on the application of ASM (Iraq)) (AP) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)	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.
UKSC 2022/0078	In the matter of an application by Stephen Hilland for Judicial Review (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)	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)?
UKSC 2022/0009	Herculito Maritime Ltd and others (Respondents) v Gunvor International BV and others (Appellants)	What is the proper interpretation of a charter agreement and bills of landing for a vessel, in respect of losses arising out the seizure of the vessel by pirates.
UKSC 2021/0213	Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Fisher (Respondent) No 2	What is the correct construction of the anti-avoidance provisions in section 739 and following of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (and its successor in Chapter 2 of Part 13 of the Income Tax Act 2007)? In particular: i) When does an individual make a transfer of assets so as to come within the scope of section 739 ICTA 1988? ii) When does the motive defence in section 741 ICTA 1988 apply to prevent a charge applying? iii) In the context of the facts of this case, is the charge applied to the relevant transfer contrary to EU law on free movement? iv) When is a charge on income too remotely connected from the transfer on which the liability is based?
UKSC 2021/0212	Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Fisher and another (Appellants)	What is the correct construction of the anti-avoidance provisions in section 739 and following of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (and its successor in Chapter 2 of Part 13 of the Income Tax Act 2007)? In particular: i) When does an individual make a transfer of assets so as to come within the scope of section 739 ICTA 1988? ii) When does the motive defence in section 741 ICTA 1988 apply to prevent a charge applying? iii) In the context of the facts of this case, is the charge applied to the relevant transfer contrary to EU law on free movement? iv) When is a charge on income too remotely connected from the transfer on which the liability is based?
UKSC 2022/0048	Byers and others (Appellants) v Saudi National Bank (Respondent)	Whether a claim in knowing receipt requires a claimant to prove a continuing proprietary interest in the property transferred to the defendant in breach of trust, in addition to knowledge on the part of the defendant so as to render his receipt unconscionable.
UKSC 2021/0189	Target Group Ltd (Appellant) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent)	Whether outsourced loan administration services supplied by Target are standard rated supplies for VAT purposes, or if they fall under the "financial services exemption" under article 135(1)(d) of the Principal VAT Directive, implemented in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA)?
UKSC 2022/0066	Skatteforvaltningen (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration) (Respondent) v Solo Capital Partners LLP (in special administration) and others (Appellants)	Whether the Danish Customs and Tax Administration's ("SKAT") claims for the recovery of tax refunds made to the appellants are not admissible before the English courts by reason of Rule 3(1) of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, which says that "English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action… for the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign State".
UKSC 2021/0181	SkyKick UK Ltd and another (Appellants) v Sky Ltd and others (Respondents)	(1) What is the test for determining "bad faith" in s.3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? (2) If such bad faith is found, what is the correct approach to determining the specification that the proprietor of the trademark should be permitted to retain?
UKSC 2021/0220	Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (Appellant)	Is the relationship between a company responsible for providing football referees to the Football League and part-time referees an employment relationship so as to trigger an obligation on the company to deduct Income Tax and National Insurance from the payments it makes to the referees?
UKSC 2022/0064	R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County Council and others (Respondents)	Under Directive 2011/92 EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, was it unlawful for the Council not to require the environmental impact assessment for a project of crude oil extraction for commercial purposes to include an assessment of the impacts of downstream greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the eventual use of the refined products of the extracted oil?
UKSC 2021/0208	TUI Ltd (Respondent) v Griffiths (Appellant)	Whether, and (if so), in what circumstances, can the court evaluate and reject what is described as an "uncontroverted" expert's report?
UKSC 2022/0083	Zubaydah (Respondent) v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others (Appellants)	Is the law applicable to the Respondent's claim the law of England and Wales or the law of the six countries in which he alleges he was unlawfully detained and tortured by the United States' authorities?
UKSC 2022/0009	Herculito Maritime Ltd and others (Respondents) v Gunvor International BV and others (Appellants)	What is the proper interpretation of a charter agreement and bills of landing for a vessel, in respect of losses arising out the seizure of the vessel by pirates.
UKSC 2022/0168	R (on the application of Iyieke) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)	Whether periods of time the appellant spent in the UK after overstaying a visa should be considered as time in the UK for the purpose of establishing 10 years' continuous lawful residence for an application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. During the ten year period, the appellant had periods with leave and without leave to remain.
UKSC 2022/0021	R (on the application of Afzal) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)	(1) Was the Court of Appeal correct that leave under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 can end without service of any notice of decision? (2) What is the proper construction of section 276B of the Immigration Rules, with regards to overstaying bookended by periods of leave to remain? (3) What is the proper construction of the Home Office's long residence policy guidance, with regards to overstaying bookended by periods of leave to remain?
UKSC 2021/0152	Popoviciu (Respondent) v Curtea De Apel Bucharest (Romania) (Appellant)	In a conviction extradition case, is it sufficient for the requested person to show substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that his trial was so flagrantly unfair as to deprive him of the essence of his Article 6 rights, and therefore a real risk that his imprisonment in the requesting state will violate his Article 5 rights?
UKSC 2022/0049	Purchase (Appellant) v Ahmed (Respondent)	Can an individual make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence?
UKSC 2022/0044	Polmear and another (Appellants) v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (Respondent)	Can an individual make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence?
UKSC 2022/0038	Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent)	Can an individual make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence?
UKSC 2021/0125	R (on the application of Wang and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)	This appeal raises issues concerning: (1) the meaning of "control" of investment money in the relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules and the facts and circumstances relevant to the assessment of "control"; and (2) the approach to the interpretation of the Immigration Rules.
UKSC 2022/0102	R (on the application of Imam) (Respondent) v London Borough of Croydon (Appellant)	When should a court make a mandatory order against a local housing authority to enforce a duty owed to a homeless individual under s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (the "1996 Act")? In particular, should the court take account of either: (a) budgetary constraints imposed on the housing authority; or (b) the availability of housing under a non-secured tenancy under Part VII of the 1996 Act (as opposed to a secured tenancy under Part VI of the 1996 Act).
UKSC 2021/0155	Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (Appellant) v Central Arbitration Committee and another (Respondents)	Did the CAC's refusal to accept the Union's application to be recognised by Deliveroo for collective bargaining interfere with the rights of Deliveroo riders to form and join a trade union under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights? If so, was this interference justified? Should the courts below have construed section 296(1)(b) of the 1992 Act so as to give effect to Article 11?
UKSC 2022/0004	Smith and another (Appellants) v Royal Bank of Scotland (Respondent)	This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The key issue is whether, in assessing the fairness of a relationship, the court can compartmentalise a relationship and, accordingly, consider whether a relationship is unfair at a given point during the relationship, rather than at the end of the relationship.
UKSC 2022/0007	Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Vermilion Holdings Ltd (Respondent) (Scotland)	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?
UKSC 2022/0046	Wolverhampton City Council and others (Respondents) v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (Appellants)	Can the Court grant final injunctions that prevent persons, who are unknown and unidentified as at the date of the order, from occupying and trespassing on land?
UKSC 2021/0147	Lifestyle Equities C.V. and another (Respondents) v Ahmed and another (Appellants)	What is the nature and extent of the liability of a director, or senior executive employee, for causing a company to commit a tort of strict liability, here trade mark infringement?
UKSC 2021/0150	Lifestyle Equities C.V. and another (Appellants) v Ahmed and another (Respondents)	What is the nature and extent of the liability of a director, or senior executive employee, for causing a company to commit a tort of strict liability, here trade mark infringement?
UKSC 2021/0201	Thaler (Appellant) v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (Respondent)	The facts and issues in this case will be published, in due course.
UKSC 2022/0121	The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (Appellant) v United Utilities Water Ltd (Respondent) No 2	Can The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited bring a private law claim in nuisance and/or trespass against United Utilities Water Limited ("UU") in respect of unauthorised discharges of untreated foul water by UU into the canal?
UKSC 2021/0233	R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another (Respondents)	Whether an administrator appointed under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1986 is a "director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate" so as to fall within s194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
UKSC 2020/0212	In the matter of an application by Rosaleen Dalton for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)	Whether the procedural obligation to investigate pursuant to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to the State in respect of Mr Dalton's death.
UKSC 2021/0172	Shanghai Shipyard Co. Ltd (Respondent) v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Ltd (Appellant)	This case concerns the proper characterisation of a shipbuilding performance guarantee (the "Guarantee"). There are two issues of law:
UKSC 2019/0204	Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and another (Appellants/Cross-Respondents) v Agnew and others (Respondents/Cross-Appellants) (Northern Ireland	Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a breach of the principle of equivalence and that the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 and Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 had to be read to afford a right to police officer claimants to present a complaint with regard to a series of underpayments of holiday pay;
UKSC 2021/0139	Canada Square Operations Ltd (Appellant) v Potter (Respondent)	This case concerns the meaning and effect of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which postpones the commencement of a limitation period where a fact relevant to the claimant's claim has been "deliberately concealed" by the defendant.