A liquidator sought to reduce a standard security granted over a hotel, arguing the underlying sale was a gratuitous alienation. The Supreme Court restored the Lord Ordinary's decision, clarifying that appellate courts may only overturn factual findings where the trial judge's decision cannot reasonably be explained or justified.
Lloyd's Names sued their managing agents for losses suffered from negligent underwriting. The House of Lords held that managing agents owed a duty of care in tort to both direct and indirect Names, based on the Hedley Byrne principle of assumption of responsibility. Concurrent liability in contract and tort was permitted.
Mr Timothy Crosland, a barrister representing Plan B Earth, deliberately breached an embargo by disclosing the outcome of a Supreme Court judgment on Heathrow Airport expansion before hand down. He admitted doing so as an act of civil disobedience. The court found him guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a £5,000 fine.
A vessel was seized by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. The shipowner paid ransom and claimed general average contribution from cargo interests. The cargo interests argued charter terms created an insurance code precluding such claims. The Supreme Court held no insurance code existed and cargo interests must contribute to general average.
After Landsbanki and its UK subsidiary Heritable both became insolvent in 2008, Landsbanki argued that Heritable's cross-claims, extinguished in the Icelandic winding-up, could not be set off in Heritable's Scottish administration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: regulation 5(1) of the 2004 Regulations does not displace Scots law governing set-off in a UK credit institution's insolvency.
An Iraqi national with a four-year drug conviction resisted deportation on Article 8 grounds, citing his UK relationship. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, clarifying the weight tribunals must give to the Immigration Rules and Parliament's public interest assessment in foreign criminal deportations.
A dispute over the validity of a lease made by a dissolved college. The Exchequer Court established the famous 'mischief rule' for statutory interpretation, requiring courts to consider the common law, the mischief Parliament sought to remedy, and the remedy provided, to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
Mrs Heywood instructed solicitors to obtain an injunction against a man molesting her. The solicitors negligently failed to enforce the injunction when it was breached, leaving her unprotected. She recovered the fees paid plus damages for mental distress caused by the continued molestation resulting from their breach of contract.
Parents of two girls killed in the Hillsborough disaster claimed damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 for injuries suffered before death. The House of Lords upheld findings that no compensable injury occurred before the swift fatal crushing, and that fear alone cannot ground a damages claim.
A Tanzanian asylum seeker from Zanzibar, who had been tortured for supporting the opposition CUF party, faced deportation from the UK. The Court found that returning him to Tanzania would violate Article 3 due to the real risk of torture or inhuman treatment, rejecting the 'internal flight' option to mainland Tanzania.
The mother of Jacqueline Hill, murdered by Peter Sutcliffe (the 'Yorkshire Ripper'), sued West Yorkshire Police for negligence in failing to apprehend him sooner. The House of Lords held that police owe no duty of care to individual members of the public in investigating crime, and public policy considerations supported immunity from such claims.
A developer sought to rely on a 1967 planning permission for 401 dwellings despite having built houses under subsequent inconsistent permissions. The Supreme Court held that where development materially departs from an approved scheme under independent permissions, the original permission becomes incapable of further implementation due to physical impossibility.
Ms Hilton pleaded guilty to benefit fraud offences and a confiscation order was made against her half-share in a jointly-owned property. The Supreme Court held section 160A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 did not require third-party representations at the confiscation stage unless a section 160A determination was actually made.
A daughter claimed financial provision from her deceased father's estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Supreme Court held that a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement cannot be included in an award for reasonable financial provision, as this would circumvent section 58A(6) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which prohibits recovery of success fees through costs orders.
BlueCrest hedge fund partners participated in a Partner Incentivisation Plan diverting profit shares to a corporate partner, which then re-allocated 'special capital' awards to individuals. The Court of Appeal upheld that profits were validly allocated to the corporate partner under section 850 ITTOIA 2005, but the final awards to individual partners were taxable as miscellaneous income under section 687.
Liquidators of HLC Environmental Projects Ltd sought relief against its principal director, Mr Carvalho, for misfeasance under s.212 Insolvency Act 1986. The director had caused the insolvent company to make substantial payments to a Portuguese parent company, to himself personally, to a bank, and to a third party, without proper consideration of creditors' interests. The court found multiple breaches of directors' duties.
A Colombian national convicted of drug trafficking in France faced deportation. He claimed that returning to Colombia would expose him to revenge by drug traffickers he had informed on, violating Article 3 ECHR. The Court held by 15-6 that deportation would not violate Article 3 as sufficient risk was not established.
The parties underwent an Islamic Nikah ceremony in London in 1998, knowing it had no legal effect and intending a later civil ceremony which never took place. The Court of Appeal held this was a 'non-qualifying ceremony', not a void marriage, so no decree of nullity could be granted.
Timothy Crosland, a barrister and director of Plan B Earth, deliberately breached an embargo on a Supreme Court judgment concerning Heathrow Airport expansion to publicise climate change concerns. The court found him in contempt, imposed a £5,000 fine and £15,000 costs. His appeal was dismissed, with the majority confirming jurisdiction under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
A health and safety inspector served a prohibition notice on Chevron regarding corroded helideck access metalwork. Subsequent testing showed the metalwork was safe. The Supreme Court held that tribunals hearing appeals under section 24 of the 1974 Act may consider evidence arising after the notice was served.
Ms Adelekun suffered personal injury in a road traffic accident and settled her claim against Ms Ho. A costs dispute arose over whether the defendant could set off costs owed to her against costs she owed the claimant under the QOCS scheme. The Supreme Court held that set-off constitutes enforcement under QOCS.
A courier was hired in April 1852 to commence employment on 1st June 1852. In May, the employer repudiated the contract. The court held the courier could sue immediately for breach without waiting until the performance date. This landmark case established the doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract.
An interior decorator contracted to decorate and furnish a flat for £750. The work was completed but with minor defects costing £55 to remedy. The defendant refused to pay the balance, arguing the contract was entire and not fully performed. The Court held substantial performance entitled the plaintiff to the contract price less the cost of remedying defects.
A hotel collapsed due to a massive landslip caused by natural cliff instability. The hotel owners sued the local council who owned the land between the hotel and the sea. The Court of Appeal held that while a measured duty of care existed regarding land support, liability was limited to damage that was reasonably foreseeable without extensive geological investigation.
Mr Hollier's car was damaged by fire at the defendants' garage due to their negligence. The defendants sought to rely on an exclusion clause disclaiming responsibility for fire damage. The Court of Appeal held the clause was not incorporated by course of dealing and, even if it had been, did not effectively exclude liability for negligence.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive