Two claimants, HXA and YXA, who suffered childhood abuse by parents or their partners, claimed local authorities owed them a common law duty of care to protect them from harm. The Supreme Court held that applying N v Poole, no assumption of responsibility arose from the authorities' statutory functions, and struck out both claims.
Mrs Hyam poured petrol through Mrs Booth’s letterbox and ignited it, knowing it was highly probable serious harm would result. Two children died. The House of Lords held that such knowledge and deliberate exposure to serious risk constituted malice aforethought, upholding her murder convictions.
Wrench offered to sell his farm to Hyde for £1000. Hyde counter-offered £950, which Wrench rejected. Hyde then purported to accept the original £1000 offer. The court held no contract existed as the counter-offer had destroyed the original offer, establishing the counter-offer rule in contract law.
A Palestinian family of six living in Gaza applied for entry clearance to the UK to join their sponsor, the father's younger brother, a British citizen. The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, holding that the tribunals below had applied the wrong legal test for family life between adult siblings under Article 8(1) ECHR, and that even if family life had existed, the Upper Tribunal had materially erred in its proportionality assessment under Article 8(2) by giving insufficient weight to immigration control policies and excessive weight to the family's circumstances in a warzone.
An Iranian Kurd who had twice been granted refugee status by UNHCR (in Iraq and Turkey) sought asylum in the UK. The Supreme Court considered the weight to be given to UNHCR refugee status determinations by national decision-makers, dismissing his appeal but clarifying the applicable principles.
Iceland Foods installed a specialised air handling system to maintain temperatures suitable for its integral refrigerated cabinets displaying frozen and chilled goods. The Supreme Court held the system was used as part of a 'trade process' and thus excluded from rateable value calculations.
A trade mark dispute concerning football boot logos. Iconix, owner of the UMBRO trade marks, sued Dream Pairs for infringement under section 10(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The Supreme Court considered whether post-sale confusion could constitute infringement and the proper approach to assessing similarity between marks. The appeal was allowed, restoring the trial judge's finding of no infringement.
Shareholders sought permission to continue a derivative claim against directors alleging breach of duty in accepting rescission of share sale agreements and failing to assert beneficial ownership of mining licences. The court refused permission for most claims but adjourned consideration of the trust claim, directing the board to reconsider its position.
Mrs Ilott, estranged from her mother for 26 years, was excluded from her will in favour of animal charities. She successfully claimed under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Supreme Court restored the District Judge's modest £50,000 award, overturning the Court of Appeal's more generous provision.
Solicitors Barrington breached warranties to litigation funder Impact under a disbursements funding agreement. When Barrington became insolvent, Impact sought to recover from its professional indemnity insurer AIG. The Supreme Court held the claim fell within the policy's exclusion for breaches of contracts supplying services to solicitors.
Two brothers, both qualified shotfirers, deliberately tested explosives without taking proper shelter in breach of statutory regulations and employer's orders. When an explosion injured them, one sued the employer for the other's negligence. The House of Lords held that volenti non fit injuria provided a complete defence where the employer was blameless.
Mr Pyke, a director excluded from company management after suffering a stroke, set up a competing business with his former company's main customer. The Court of Appeal held he did not breach fiduciary duty because his exclusion from all company affairs meant his directorship was nominal, eliminating any conflict of interest.
Mr Clarke objected to the registration of his wife's LPAs, arguing she lacked capacity and the witness had not properly observed her signing. Senior Judge Lush rejected both challenges, applying Casson v Dade's 'line of sight' principle and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Mr L, a profoundly mentally retarded autistic man, was informally admitted to a psychiatric hospital after a self-harming incident. The House of Lords held that his informal admission under section 131(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 was lawful, and that treatment of compliant incapacitated patients could be justified under the common law doctrine of necessity.
Dennis Hutchings, a former soldier charged with the 1974 attempted murder of John Paul Cunningham in Northern Ireland, challenged the DPP's certificate ordering trial without a jury. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, upholding the certificate under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007.
Northern Ireland residents challenged the lawfulness of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, part of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. They argued it violated the Acts of Union 1800 and section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, holding Parliament had expressly authorised the Protocol through the 2018 and 2020 Acts.
A young girl and her father challenged Christian religious education and collective worship in a Northern Ireland primary school as contrary to Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR. The Supreme Court held that the core syllabus was not objective, critical and pluralistic, and the parental right of withdrawal was insufficient to prevent a breach due to risks of stigmatisation and undue burden.
Four victims of the Northern Ireland Troubles challenged provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, including conditional immunity from prosecution, bars on civil actions, and the ICRIR's investigative powers. The Supreme Court allowed the Secretary of State's appeal on Windsor Framework and ICRIR grounds, dismissed the cross-appeal on the Charter, but left intact unappealed declarations of incompatibility.
RM, a restricted patient detained under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, sought discharge from hospital. The Supreme Court addressed whether leave of absence under article 15 is inconsistent with continued detention for treatment. The Court held that article 15 leave can form part of treatment while a patient remains detained.
Siobhan McLaughlin cohabited with her partner for 23 years and had four children before his death. She was denied widowed parent's allowance because they were unmarried. The Supreme Court declared the legislation incompatible with Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8.
Stephen Hilland, a prisoner serving a determinate custodial sentence, challenged the Department of Justice's practice of applying different recall tests based on sentence type. DCS prisoners could be recalled for posing a risk of 'harm', while ICS and ECS prisoners required a risk of 'serious harm'. The Supreme Court held this difference was not discriminatory as prisoners under different sentencing regimes are not in analogous situations.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland challenged a coroner's decision to disclose gists of information from documents subject to Public Interest Immunity certificates relating to a 1994 murder in Belfast. The Supreme Court established that courts reviewing PII decisions must form their own view of the public interest balance rather than applying ordinary judicial review standards, and allowed the appeal preventing disclosure.
Care orders were made to remove three children from their mother due to risk of sexual harm from her adult son. The Supreme Court held the judge failed to conduct a proper proportionality analysis comparing available options, including less interventionist measures, against the harm of removal. The case was remitted for rehearing.
Raymond Brownlee dismissed his legal team late in his Crown Court trial. New counsel could not be retained for sentencing because the fixed legal aid fees made no provision for preparatory work. The Supreme Court held the Rules were ultra vires for failing to address this.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court has no inherent (parens patriae) jurisdiction to revoke a validly made adoption order on welfare grounds. AM, adoptive mother of X and Y, sought revocation after both children returned to their natural mother. The appeal was dismissed.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive