Skip to main content

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 2022/0180 Unite the Union and another (Respondents) v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus (Appellant)

Did the Court of Appeal err in:

  1. holding that rectification is not available for a collective agreement which is not intended to be a legally enforceable contract;
  2. refusing to allow the claim to be amended;
  3. holding that an employment tribunal has power to reject a complaint on the grounds of rectification;
  4. holding that it would be an abuse of process to raise rectification in respect of past complaints and/or that a claim for rectification was estopped; and
  5. its holding on privity of interest.
UKSC 2023/0080 El-Husseiny and another (Appellants) v Invest Bank PSC (Respondent)

Did the Court of Appeal correctly interpret section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by determining that: (1) a person can 'enter into' a transaction where they act on behalf of a company; and (2) there can be a 'transaction' for the purposes of section 423 where the asset which is alleged to have been disposed of at an undervalue was not beneficially owned by the 'debtor'?

UKSC 2022/0124 Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd (Respondent) v Simply Construct (UK) LLP (Appellant)

Was the majority of the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the collateral warranty in this case was a "construction contract" for the purposes of section 104(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996?

UKSC 2022/0133 Tesco Stores Ltd (Respondent) v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others (Appellants)

Was the CA wrong to find that Tesco was entitled to terminate certain employment contracts which included an entitlement to "Retained Pay", described as "permanent", and offer re-engagement on terms without Retained Pay (the so-called "fire and re-hire" mechanism)?

UKSC 2024/0015 UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RusChemAlliance LLC (Appellant)

[To be added in due course]

UKSC 2023/0052
UKSC 2023/0053
Abbasi and another (Respondents) v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Appellant)
Haastrup (Respondent) v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Appellant)

Was the Court of Appeal right, in balancing the respective article 8 and article 10 rights, to discharge the relevant Reporting Restriction Orders ("RROs")?

UKSC 2023/0006 In the matter of an application by JR222 for Judicial Review (AP) (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)

Whether it is correct that under s.13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 a minister can only suspend a public inquiry where the minister takes the view that it is necessary to allow for the completion of civil or criminal proceedings?

UKSC 2022/0183 Centrica Overseas Holdings Ltd (Appellant) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent)

This case concerns s. 1219 of the Corporation Tax Act ("CTA") 2009 which enables a company with an investment business to deduct the expenses of management of that business in calculating its profits for the purpose of determining its liability to corporation tax. The first issue is what is the correct way to identify expenses of management of an investment business which are of "a capital nature" and therefore excluded from corporation tax deductions. The second issue is whether the disputed expenses in question in this case were "expenses of a capital nature".

UKSC 2022/0181 QX (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)

1) Does Article 6(1) ECHR apply to QX's challenge to the Temporary Exclusion Order ("TEO") placed upon him by the SSHD? Did the first instance Judge err in law in holding that QX was not entitled to disclosure of the kind described in AF (No 3) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 28; [2012] 2 AC 269 ("AF No. 3") in relation to his challenge to the SSHD's determination of Conditions A and B when imposing the TEO?

2) What is the role of the Court in determining a challenge to the SSHD's decision to impose a TEO? Does the Court of Appeal have the power to make the factual assessment of terrorist-related activity for itself, or is it limited to an administrative review of the decision made by the SSHD?

UKSC 2022/0172 RTI Ltd (Respondent) v MUR Shipping BV (Appellant)

Where a contractual force majeure clause contains a proviso requiring the party which is affected by force majeure to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome it, can the proviso require the affected party to agree to accept a non-contractual performance?

UKSC 2023/0028 Davies (Respondent) v Bridgend County Borough Council (Appellant)

Were the lower courts correct to decide that loss suffered by the Respondent, in the form of diminution in value of the Respondent's property as a result of the encroachment of Japanese knotweed from the Appellant's land, was caused by the Appellant's breach of duty in failing to treat the knotweed, in circumstances where the encroachment first arose before the Appellant's breach?

UKSC 2023/0029 Sharp Corp Ltd (Respondent) v Viterra BV (previously known as Glencore Agriculture BV) (Appellant)

"Where goods sold Cost & Freight free out are located at their discharge port, on the date of the buyer's default, in the circumstances as found by the GAFTA Appeal Board in the Awards, is "the actual or estimated value of the goods, on the date of default" under sub-clause (c) of the GAFTA Default Clause to be assessed by reference to:

a) The market value of goods at that discharge port (where they are located on the date of default); or

b) The theoretical cost on the date of default of (i) buying those goods Free on Board at the original port of shipment plus (ii) the market freight rate for transporting the goods from that port to the discharge port free out?"

UKSC 2023/0047 A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd (Appellant) v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd (Respondent)

Does a failure to serve a claim notice on an intermediate landlord with no management responsibilities invalidate a right to manage claim under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002?

UKSC 2021/0098 Lipton and another (Respondents) v BA Cityflyer Ltd (Appellant)

Is a pilot unexpectedly falling ill while off-duty an "extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken" within the meaning of EC Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), which provides for air carriers to pay compensation to passengers of cancelled flights?

UKSC 2022/0174 R (on the application of Cobalt Data Centre 2 LLP and another) (Appellants) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent)

Were the LLPs entitled to enterprise zone allowances in respect of the price they paid to acquire the benefit of a construction contract?

UKSC 2022/0015 Hirachand (Appellant) v Hirachand and another (Respondents)

This appeal concerns the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the "1975 Act"), which gives courts the power to order a lump or recurring sum to be paid out of the estate of a deceased person for his or her family and dependants. Section 3(1)(a) of the 1975 Act provides that, in determining whether and in what manner the court should exercise such a power, it shall have regard to "the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future" (among other matters).

The question for the UK Supreme Court is: was the Court of Appeal wrong in law to decide that a conditional fee agreement ("CFA") success fee is a debt the satisfaction of which may constitute a "financial need" for which the court may make provision in an award under the 1975 Act?

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 2022/0162 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 2022/0037 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 2022/0135 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:
  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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 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 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 2021/0147 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 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?