Turkish Cypriot appellants whose limited leave to remain had expired attempted to appeal against refusal of further leave. The House of Lords held the adjudicator had no jurisdiction as no valid leave existed to vary. Appeal dismissed following Suthendran.
Halliburton sought removal of an arbitrator, Mr Rokison QC, who accepted multiple appointments in related Deepwater Horizon arbitrations involving Chubb without disclosure to Halliburton. The Supreme Court held there is a legal duty of disclosure but dismissed the appeal on the facts.
Mr and Mrs Hancock sold their company shares for loan notes, later converted into qualifying corporate bonds. They argued the conversion escaped capital gains tax. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal, holding the transaction comprised two separate conversions.
Two law firms disputed which could act for group claimants in Volkswagen diesel emissions litigation. The central issue was whether a non-compete undertaking given by one firm to the other was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court held the undertaking was enforceable and not an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Young pheasants died after eating compound food containing toxic Brazilian groundnut meal. The case examined liability through the chain of supply under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act 1926, establishing important principles on implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantability in commercial sales.
Syrian national appealed refusal of asylum, claiming risk of ill-treatment as a draft evader if returned. The Court of Appeal upheld the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's decision, finding that where no personal risk factors exist, establishing 'real risk' requires evidence of a consistent pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations affecting the relevant class.
An art dealer sold a painting attributed to Gabriele Münter to another dealer for £6,000, but it was later discovered to be a forgery. The buyer claimed breach of the implied condition under s.13(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (sale by description). The Court of Appeal held there was no sale by description as the buyer had not relied on the seller's attribution but on his own judgment.
A bungee jumping operator sued an HSE inspector for negligent advice given to local councils, which led to improvement and prohibition notices being served against his business. The Court of Appeal held that no duty of care was owed by inspectors to business owners for economic loss caused by enforcement action under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
An auctioneer advertised office furniture for sale at auction. The plaintiff travelled to attend but the goods were withdrawn. The court held that an advertisement of an auction is merely a declaration of intent, not an offer, so the auctioneer was not liable for the plaintiff's wasted expenses.
Richard Harris, disqualified as a director for persistently failing to submit VAT returns at Digital Docs Limited, sought leave under s.17 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to act as director of three companies. The court granted conditional leave for one company but refused leave for two others due to insufficient need and public protection concerns.
Sixth form college teachers went on strike for one day. Their employer deducted 1/260 of their annual salary. The Supreme Court held that under section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870, the correct deduction was 1/365, reflecting calendar day apportionment.
Appellants sent a telegram asking if Facey would sell property and his lowest price. Facey replied with only the lowest price (£900). Appellants purported to accept. The Privy Council held no contract existed as stating a lowest price was not an offer to sell.
A 48-year-old Indian widow and her two teenage sons sought entry to the UK as dependants of her sponsoring son. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants were not 'mainly dependent' on the sponsor as the able-bodied teenage sons could work to support themselves.
The Supreme Court addressed how to calculate damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity where a claimant suffers both whiplash and non-whiplash injuries in the same road traffic accident. The Court upheld the approach of adding the statutory tariff amount for whiplash to common law damages for non-whiplash injuries, then making a deduction to avoid double recovery.
Hastings Borough Council closed Hastings Pier under emergency powers in 2006 due to structural concerns. Stylus, a tenant operating businesses on the pier, claimed compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984. The Supreme Court dismissed the council's appeal, holding Stylus was not 'in default'.
Mr Hastings received a MITCH-Accolade metal-on-metal hip replacement in 2009, requiring revision surgery in 2012. He claimed the prosthesis was defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to prove the product was defective as statistical evidence did not establish survivorship rates below entitled expectations.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Julia's appeal against a ruling invalidating her mother's 2007 will, which had cut out her brother Peter from the residuary estate. Whilst doubting the lack of testamentary capacity finding, the court upheld want of knowledge and approval.
A couple purchased a motor repair business relying on their solicitors' negligent advice that a right of way existed. When the access was blocked, their business failed. The court assessed damages on a 'no-transaction' basis, awarding expenditure less recoveries, but disallowed damages for mental distress in commercial contracts.
Mr Willoughby conducted an obsessive campaign against Mr Hayes, repeatedly reporting unfounded allegations of fraud to public authorities. The Supreme Court held that the defence of 'preventing or detecting crime' under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires rationality, not merely subjective belief. The appeal was dismissed.
Mr Hayward dishonestly exaggerated a workplace injury claim, which Zurich settled for £134,973 despite suspicions of fraud. After new evidence emerged, Zurich sued to set aside the settlement. The Supreme Court held the settlement could be rescinded for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Healthcare at Home lost a public tender competition and challenged the process as insufficiently transparent under EU procurement rules. The Supreme Court held that the 'reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer' is a legal fiction assessed objectively by the court, not by witness evidence.
A ship painter was injured when staging ropes provided by a dry dock owner failed. The Court of Appeal, through Brett MR's influential obiter, articulated an early general principle of duty of care in negligence, foreshadowing the modern law established in Donoghue v Stevenson.
Hedley Byrne, advertising agents, suffered financial loss after relying on negligent credit references given by Heller & Partners about a customer. The House of Lords established that a duty of care can arise for negligent misstatements where there is a 'special relationship' between parties, even without a contract, though the defendants escaped liability due to their disclaimer of responsibility.
Buckleton purchased shares in a rubber company after a telephone conversation with the defendants' agent. When the company proved not to be primarily a rubber company, he claimed damages for breach of warranty. The House of Lords held no warranty existed, establishing that representations only become warranties if intended as such.
Ms Henderson, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, killed her mother during a psychotic episode and was convicted of manslaughter by diminished responsibility. She sued the NHS Trust for negligently failing to return her to hospital. The Supreme Court held her claim was barred by illegality.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive