Visit JCPCAll cases
1570 Cases
UKSC/2026/0066
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Whether it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court a judge-reviewed decision by the Court of Appeal that it does not have jurisdiction to issue an Appellant's Notice
Last updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0128
•
DEVOLUTION
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 7Case summary:Whether the High Court of Justiciary erred in law by holding that a 'real risk of prejudice' must be established, as opposed to the mere possibility of prejudice per Holland v HMA, 2005 1 SC (PC) 1 (Lord Rodger at para 88), in order for a trial to be rendered unfair contrary to article 6 ECHR.
Linked casesLast updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0129
•
DEVOLUTION
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 6Case summary:Whether non-disclosure of the previous convictions and outstanding charges of a Prosecution witness to the Defence rendered a trial unfair contrary to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR').
Linked casesLast updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0125
•
DEVOLUTION
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 10Case summary:Whether section 45 of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 ("the 2007 Act") (increasing the sentencing power of Sheriffs in respect of offences promulgated by, inter alia, road traffic legislation) is within the competence or vires of the Scottish Parliament.
Linked casesLast updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0127
•
DEVOLUTION
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 10Case summary:Whether section 45 of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 (increasing the sentencing power of Sheriffs in respect of offences promulgated by, inter alia, road traffic legislation) is within the competence or vires of the Scottish Parliament.
Linked casesLast updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0018
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 5Case summary:(1) Whether the judge was correct to conclude that the 2006 Order was unlawful insofar as it applies to HAY, and whether that conclusion is consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in A, K, M, Q & G v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187; (2) Whether the 2006 Order is unlawful because article 3(1)(b) expressly provides that its provisions apply automatically to a defined class of persons, namely all persons named on the Consolidated List maintained by the 1267 Committee; and (3) Whether the provisions of article 3(1)(b) of the 2006 Order operate contrary to a common principle of access to the court.
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0016
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 5Case summary:(i) Whether the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 are unlawful because they seek to restrict fundamental human rights without the express authorisation of Parliament; (ii) Whether the restriction of funds pursuant to the Orders interferes with rights pursuant to article 8 and article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in respect of G, article 6; (iii) Whether the ambit of restrictive measures in the Orders is sufficiently certain; (iv) Whether the lack of procedural measures to challenge the restrictive measures renders the scheme unlawful.
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0015
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 5Case summary:(i) Whether the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 are unlawful because they seek to restrict fundamental human rights without the express authorisation of Parliament; (ii) Whether the restriction of funds pursuant to the Orders interferes with rights pursuant to article 8 and article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in respect of G, article 6; (iii) Whether the ambit of restrictive measures in the Orders is sufficiently certain; (iv) Whether the lack of procedural measures to challenge the restrictive measures renders the scheme unlawful.
Linked casesLast updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0048
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 38Case summary:Whether the parties entered into a contract following the expiry of the letter of intent.
Last updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2026/0136
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 14 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0044
•
TAX
Judgment given[2010] UKSC 4Case summary:(1) Whether the disposal of shares in Gray's Group Limited by a director was a disposal giving rise to a charge to tax on employment income in terms of section 446Y of the Income Tax (Employment and Pensions) Act 2003 (as amended by Finance Act 2003) and; (2) Upon what basis the market value of those shares is to be determined for the purposes of section 446Y.
Last updated: 13 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0073
•
CRIME
Judgment given[2009] UKSC 14Case summary:(1) Whether, having regard to the scheme of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in relation to hearsay evidence and articles 6(3) and 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights, a conviction based solely or to a decisive degree on hearsay evidence is necessarily unsafe; (2) Whether the only cases in which a conviction based on such evidence is safe is one in which the evidence was admitted because the witness was in fear; (3) The ambit of ‘fear’ for this purpose.
Last updated: 13 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0038
•
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING
Judgment given[2009] UKSC 13Case summary:Whether sewerage undertakers have any power under section 106 of the 1991 Act to control the location at which a developer may connect a new development to an existing sewerage network by rejecting the point of connection selected by the developer [‘Point X’] and/or by determining an alternative location [‘Point Y’] at which a connection would be suitable.
Last updated: 13 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0087
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment given[2009] UKSC 11Case summary:Whether the law of trespass, which protects landowners from acts of threatened trespass, can be interpreted so as to require a public body to tolerate acts of trespass by persons who otherwise lack suitable accommodation.
Last updated: 13 September 2026
UKSC/2009/0075
•
FAMILY
Judgment given[2009] UKSC 10Case summary:Whether the reference to a "third state" in Article 12(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 (Brussels II Regulation), allowing for prorogation of jurisdiction in care proceedings where it is in the child’s best interests, extends to children who are habitually resident outside of the EU.
Last updated: 13 September 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.