Visit JCPCAll cases
45 Cases
UKSC/2021/0150
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:What is the nature and extent of the liability of a director, or senior executive employee, for causing a company to commit a civil wrong, for which a claim can be brought without a finding of fault by the wrongdoer (e.g. a ‘strict liability tort’)? Here, the strict liability tort was trademark infringement.If a director is legally responsible for the tort, can they be ordered to pay profits made as a result of the tort to the wronged part (e.g. a ‘account of profits’), even if those profits were not personally received? Does this extend to the director paying back the portion of their salary that was attributable to the tort?
Last updated: 6 September 2024
UKSC/2022/0064
•
ENVIRONMENT/PLANNING
Judgment givenCase summary: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?
Last updated: 28 August 2024
UKSC/2021/0130
•
FAMILY
Judgment givenCase summary: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?
Last updated: 14 August 2024
UKSC/2022/0121
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:Can The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited (“MSCC”) 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?.
Last updated: 31 July 2024
UKSC/2021/0147
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Hearing listedCase summary:What is the nature and extent of the liability of a director, or senior executive employee, for causing a company to commit a civil wrong, for which a claim can be brought without a finding of fault by the wrongdoer (e.g. a ‘strict liability tort’)? Here, the strict liability tort was trademark infringement.If a director is legally responsible for the tort, can they be ordered to pay profits made as a result of the tort to the wronged part (e.g. a ‘account of profits’), even if those profits were not personally received? Does this extend to the director paying back the portion of their salary that was attributable to the tort?
Linked casesCross appeal.
Last updated: 29 July 2024
UKSC/2021/0220
•
TAX
Awaiting judgmentCase summary: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?
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2021/0181
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:(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?
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2022/0147
•
TORT
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:What does a claimant need to demonstrate to rely on s3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 in a claim for malicious falsehood?
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2022/0135
•
TORT
Awaiting judgmentCase summary: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?
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2022/0037
•
INSOLVENCY
Awaiting judgmentCase summary: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").
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2022/0162
•
COMMERCIAL
Awaiting judgmentCase summary: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.
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2021/0184
•
PROCEDURE
Awaiting judgmentCase summary: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.
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2022/0113
•
IMMIGRATION
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:When will a refusal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to grant leave to remain to an individual, who cannot be removed to their country of nationality, violate that individual's right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2022/0080
•
CRIME
Awaiting judgmentCase summary: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?
Last updated: 20 June 2024
UKSC/2022/0015
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting judgmentCase summary: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?
Last updated: 20 June 2024
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.