A building contractor agreed to build 78 houses within eight months but took twenty-two months due to labour and material shortages. The contractor claimed the contract was frustrated and sought payment on a quantum meruit basis. The House of Lords held the contract was not frustrated as the work remained the same, merely more onerous.
A developer challenged whether a planning condition required dedication of access roads as public highways. The Supreme Court held that planning authorities cannot impose such requirements via conditions, as this would circumvent compensation rights. The condition in question addressed construction standards, not dedication.
Residents of the nationalist Short Strand area in Belfast challenged the PSNI's failure to stop unnotified loyalist 'flags protest' parades that caused violence and sectarian attacks on their homes. The Supreme Court held the police had misunderstood the scope of their legal powers to stop such parades.
DCM, an optical business, challenged HMRC's VAT assessment on time-bar grounds and disputed HMRC's power to reduce claimed VAT credits without formal assessment. The Supreme Court held the assessment was not time-barred and confirmed HMRC has implied power to verify and refuse unjustified VAT credit claims.
Mrs De Freitas sued Mr O'Brien, a spinal surgeon, for negligence after a second back operation caused her permanent disability. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a small body of specialist spinal surgeons could constitute a responsible body of medical opinion under the Bolam test, and that the decision to operate was not negligent.
A civil servant in Antigua participated in peaceful demonstrations criticising government corruption. He was interdicted under legislation prohibiting civil servants from publishing political opinions. The Privy Council held the statutory restriction unconstitutional as it was too broad and not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, establishing a proportionality test.
An air hostess claimed compensation for pay discrimination compared to male cabin stewards doing identical work. The Court held that Article 119 EEC Treaty on equal pay has direct effect and can be relied upon before national courts, establishing the principle of equal pay as a foundation of Community law.
Uber sought a declaration that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 requires private hire vehicle operators to accept bookings only by entering into hire contracts as principal. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that section 56(1) is a deeming provision allowing operators to use agency or intermediary models while still being liable for hire contracts.
A Turkish Kurd who had suffered severe torture by Turkish police sought asylum in the UK. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal despite accepting his account of persecution. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal failed to properly consider his past persecution when assessing future risk.
The owners of Walcot Hall Estate claimed noise from RAF Harrier jets at nearby RAF Wittering constituted nuisance and violated their human rights. The court found the extreme noise was a nuisance but refused an injunction due to public interest in national defence, instead awarding £950,000 damages as compensation.
The Information Commissioner appealed against the cumulative approach to assessing qualified exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Supreme Court held that where multiple qualified exemptions apply to requested information, public interest factors against disclosure may be aggregated rather than assessed independently for each exemption.
Derbyshire County Council sued The Sunday Times for libel over articles questioning the propriety of investments made by the council's superannuation fund. The House of Lords unanimously held that local authorities and governmental bodies cannot sue for defamation, as allowing such actions would create an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech and public criticism of government.
Directors of a tramway company issued a prospectus stating the company had the right to use steam power, when in fact this required Board of Trade consent. Sir Henry Peek purchased shares relying on this statement. The House of Lords held that an action for deceit requires proof of fraud, meaning a false statement made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly.
Deutsche Bahn and others brought follow-on damages claims against Morgan, a whistle-blowing cartel member who did not appeal the Commission's infringement decision. The Supreme Court held the claims time-barred, ruling that appeals by other addressees did not affect the limitation period against a non-appealing addressee.
The Lord Advocate referred to the Supreme Court the question whether the Scottish Parliament had power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence. The Court held it did not, as such legislation would relate to reserved matters under the Scotland Act 1998, specifically the Union of Scotland and England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Mr Bentley purchased a Bentley car from a dealer who represented it had done only 20,000 miles since being fitted with a replacement engine and gearbox. This statement was false. The Court of Appeal held this was a warranty, not merely an innocent misrepresentation, because the dealer was in a position to know the facts and had no reasonable foundation for the statement.
Dodds offered to sell property to Dickinson, promising to keep the offer open until Friday 9 AM, but sold to a third party (Allan) before Dickinson accepted. Dickinson, having learned of the sale to Allan from an intermediary, nevertheless attempted to accept and sued for specific performance. The Court of Appeal reversed the Vice-Chancellor's decision, holding that no binding contract existed because the offer had been effectively revoked before acceptance — the promise to keep the offer open was unsupported by consideration and therefore not binding, and Dickinson's knowledge of the sale to Allan constituted sufficient notice of withdrawal.
Two firms sold extended warranty contracts for satellite TV equipment providing repairs or replacements in kind. The Supreme Court held these were regulated insurance contracts within Class 16 of the Regulated Activities Order; EU Non-life Directives set minimum, not maximum, regulation. Appeal dismissed; winding-up orders upheld.
Mr Dill sold a pair of 18th century lead urns on limestone piers from his garden, unaware they were listed. The Supreme Court held he could challenge whether they were 'buildings' at all in enforcement proceedings, and that the Skerritts tests apply.
A father gave his son land to build a house on, signing a memorandum. The son spent £14,000 building a residence with the father's approval. The Lord Chancellor held the son was entitled to the fee simple, not merely a life estate, establishing proprietary estoppel principles.
Protesters blocked a road leading to an arms fair by lying down with lock boxes. They were charged with wilful obstruction of a highway. The district judge acquitted them, finding their peaceful, targeted protest was protected by articles 10 and 11 ECHR. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittals, confirming deliberate obstruction can constitute lawful excuse if proportionate.
Mr Donoghue, a professional diver, dived into Folkestone Harbour at midnight in mid-winter, struck submerged grid piles, and broke his neck. The Court of Appeal held that the harbour owners owed no duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 as they had no reason to believe anyone would swim there at that time.
Mrs Donoghue found a decomposed snail in her ginger beer, bought by her friend. She suffered illness and successfully sued the manufacturer despite not having directly purchased the product herself. This case laid down the neighbour principle.
After a debtor's protected trust deed was administered and a 'final' dividend paid in ignorance of mis-sold PPI compensation, the Supreme Court held the trust had terminated, the debtor was discharged, and the former trustee had no claim to the later-discovered asset.
A factory worker was injured when an asbestos-cement lid fell into molten liquid, causing an unforeseeable chemical eruption. The Court of Appeal held the injury was too remote as the eruption was not foreseeable, distinguishing it from mere splashing which was a different class of harm.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive