A local authority sought possession of a flexible secure tenancy property during the fixed term without seeking forfeiture. The Supreme Court held that the statutory secure tenancy regime does not diminish a tenant's contractual security, and landlords must either obtain a termination order in lieu of forfeiture or exercise an available break clause before seeking possession on statutory grounds.
Chilean asylum seekers challenged their expulsion from Sweden to Chile, alleging risk of torture. The first applicant claimed past torture by Chilean authorities. Sweden expelled him despite the European Commission's request for interim measures. The Court found no violation of Article 3, Article 8, or Article 25, holding interim measures under Rule 36 were not binding.
CTN Cash and Carry paid £17,000 to Gallaher for stolen cigarettes after Gallaher threatened to withdraw credit facilities. Gallaher genuinely but mistakenly believed payment was owed. The Court of Appeal held that lawful commercial pressure exercised in bona fide pursuit of a believed debt did not constitute economic duress enabling recovery of payment.
A rogue named Blenkarn fraudulently posed as the reputable firm 'Blenkiron & Co' to obtain handkerchiefs from Lindsay & Co, then sold them to innocent purchaser Cundy. The House of Lords held the contract void for mistake as to identity, meaning title never passed and Cundy had to return the goods.
Customs & Excise obtained freezing injunctions against two companies with accounts at Barclays Bank. After the bank was notified of the orders, it negligently permitted substantial fund transfers from both accounts. The court held that the bank owed no duty of care to the claimants merely by receiving notice of the freezing injunctions, as proximity required an assumption of responsibility which had not occurred before the transfers.
A ship's second mate died during the voyage from Jamaica to Liverpool before completing the journey. He had agreed to receive thirty guineas on condition he served the entire voyage. The Court held that as the contract was entire and the condition precedent unfulfilled, his estate could recover nothing.
Plaintiff sought to rely on a 'without prejudice' letter containing a settlement offer on the question of costs after trial. The Court of Appeal held that a 'Calderbank letter' (without prejudice save as to costs) is admissible on the issue of costs in all civil proceedings, not just matrimonial cases.
D & C Builders, a small building company in financial difficulties, were owed £482 by Rees. His wife offered £300 in full settlement, threatening they would receive nothing otherwise. The Court of Appeal held the payment did not discharge the debt as there was no consideration and the agreement was obtained through intimidation.
Lessees of a flat discovered defective plaster caused by negligent sub-contractors employed by the main building contractor. The House of Lords held that the cost of repairing defective work which had not caused personal injury or damage to other property was pure economic loss and not recoverable in tort against the builder.
D, a 16-year-old with multiple disabilities including autism and Tourette's, was placed in residential accommodation with continuous supervision. His parents consented to arrangements that would otherwise deprive him of his liberty. The Supreme Court held that parental consent could not authorise such deprivation for a 16 or 17-year-old, requiring Article 5 safeguards.
D, a St Kitts national with terminal AIDS, faced deportation from the UK after serving a drug trafficking sentence. The Court held that removing him to St Kitts, where he would lack medical treatment and support, would constitute inhuman treatment violating Article 3 ECHR due to the exceptional humanitarian circumstances.
The Supreme Court held, by 3-2, that when deciding whether to dispense with statutory consultation requirements under s.20ZA(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the LVT should focus on prejudice to tenants, not the gravity of the landlord's breach, and may grant dispensation on terms. Daejan's appeal was allowed.
Dahlia Ltd claimed damages for breach of a unilateral contract, alleging the first defendants promised to exchange written sale contracts for properties if the plaintiffs attended with a banker's draft and signed contract. The Court of Appeal held the unilateral contract fell within Section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925 as a contract for disposition of an interest in land, and was unenforceable without sufficient part performance.
Oatly registered the trade mark 'POST MILK GENERATION' for oat-based food and drink products. Dairy UK challenged its validity under the Trade Marks Act 1994, arguing it violated EU Regulation 1308/2013 prohibiting dairy terms for non-dairy products. The Supreme Court dismissed Oatly's appeal, holding the mark constituted a prohibited 'designation' of milk.
Ms Dalton challenged the Attorney General's refusal to order a fresh inquest into her father's death in a 1988 IRA bombing. The Supreme Court held that as the death occurred more than 12 years before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the procedural obligation under Article 2 ECHR did not apply domestically, and the appeal was allowed.
Mr Daly was convicted of child sexual offences including rape. He appealed arguing his trial was unfair because he could not cross-examine the complainer about an uncharged allegation he claimed was false, which would have challenged her credibility under Article 6 ECHR.
Nigerian asylum seeker appealed against refusal of asylum, having engaged in pro-democracy activities in the UK after his initial claim was refused. The Court of Appeal held that even if an asylum seeker acts in 'bad faith' to bolster their claim, they may still qualify for refugee status if they have a genuine well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.
Mr Darby drowned while swimming in a pond at a National Trust property. His widow claimed the Trust breached its duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 by failing to warn of dangers. The Court of Appeal held that the dangers of swimming were obvious and no warning was required.
Darlington Borough Council sought to recover damages for defective construction of the Dolphin Centre from Wiltshier, despite not being a party to the building contract. Morgan Grenfell had contracted with Wiltshier as employer, then assigned its rights to Darlington. The Court of Appeal held Darlington could recover substantial damages as assignee.
The Claimant attended A&E after a head injury and was told he would wait 4-5 hours. He left after 19 minutes without being seen by clinical staff and later suffered serious brain injury. The claim against the hospital for negligence by reception staff in providing inaccurate waiting time information was dismissed.
Landowners sought a declaration that section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 does not grant the public a right to camp on Dartmoor Commons. The Supreme Court held that 'open-air recreation' includes wild camping, and the words 'on foot and on horseback' describe the means of access, not a limitation on recreational activities. Appeal dismissed.
Following a fatal explosion at ICL's Glasgow factory in 2004, Morrison's neighbouring shop was damaged. Morrison sued in 2009. The Supreme Court held its claim had prescribed under the five-year period, ruling that time runs from awareness of loss alone, not its cause.
The Supreme Court held that, following the Care Commission's dissolution, references to it in the saved provisions of the 2001 Act must be read as references to SCSWIS. Applying Inco Europe, it filled a drafting gap in the transitional orders and, to prevent abuse of process, directed that the 2008 and 2009 cancellation decisions have no effect.
Japanese Knotweed spread from council land to claimant's property before any breach of duty arose. The claimant sought damages for residual diminution in property value. The Supreme Court held the diminution predated the breach, failing the 'but for' causation test, and allowed the council's appeal.
Eirian Davies worked on her parents' farm over many years on the strength of various assurances about inheriting the farm and business. The Court of Appeal reduced her proprietary estoppel award from £1.3 million to £500,000, emphasising proportionality between remedy and detriment.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive