The Supreme Court held that a child's own views may be taken into account when assessing whether return under the Hague Convention would create a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under article 13(b). However, on the Lord Ordinary's findings — including a real risk of the mother's suicide — the defence was established, and the appeal against the refusal to return 14-year-old H to the USA was dismissed.
Dispute arose whether an appeal to the Court of Appeal was permitted from a High Court decision under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 regarding a stay of proceedings. The House of Lords held that despite a drafting error in section 18(1)(g) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the right of appeal remained where the relevant section was silent on restrictions.
Deliveroo riders sought trade union recognition for collective bargaining through the Independent Workers Union. The Supreme Court held that the riders were not in an employment relationship within Article 11 ECHR, and that Article 11 does not confer a right to compulsory collective bargaining. The appeal was dismissed.
Spain and Zimbabwe appealed against registration of ICSID arbitration awards in the UK, claiming state immunity. The Supreme Court held that by ratifying the ICSID Convention, particularly Article 54(1), contracting states waived their immunity from adjudicative jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement proceedings, while preserving immunity from execution only.
HMRC's Permanent Secretary for Tax discussed Mr McKenna's tax affairs with Times journalists in an 'off the record' interview. The Supreme Court held this breached HMRC's statutory duty of confidentiality under section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
Three sisters sold their car to a rogue who falsely claimed to be P.G.M. Hutchinson of Caterham, a genuine person they verified in the telephone directory. The rogue paid by worthless cheque and sold the car to a bona fide purchaser. The Court held no contract existed as the offer was made only to the real Hutchinson.
A photographic library sent transparencies with conditions including an unusually high holding fee of £5 per day per transparency. The defendants retained them beyond 14 days without reading the conditions. The Court of Appeal held that particularly onerous or unusual terms must be fairly brought to the other party's attention to be incorporated into a contract.
A German company challenged EU regulations requiring export licence deposits as contrary to German constitutional rights. The Court of Justice ruled that Community law validity cannot be judged by national constitutional standards, but fundamental rights form part of Community law's general principles.
Investors who suffered losses from Home Income Plans claimed compensation from the Investors Compensation Scheme, which then sought to recover from building societies as assignees. The House of Lords clarified principles of contractual interpretation, holding that documents must be construed by reference to background knowledge available to parties, not merely literal word meanings.
NNPC challenged enforcement of a Nigerian arbitration award in England, alleging fraud. The Court of Appeal had ordered NNPC to provide a further USD 100m security as a condition of having its section 103(3) challenge determined. The Supreme Court allowed NNPC's appeal, holding this exceeded the court's jurisdiction.
A solicitor-advocate brought a harassment claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against his former employer solicitors' firm, based on three letters containing allegations against his professional and personal integrity. The Court of Appeal reinstated the claim after it had been struck out, holding that the letters were arguably capable of constituting a course of conduct amounting to harassment.
A father took his daughter on holiday during term time despite the head teacher's refusal. He was prosecuted under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 for failing to ensure regular school attendance. The Supreme Court held 'regularly' means 'in accordance with the rules prescribed by the school'.
Three local authorities jointly funded and operated a leisure complex under a 1977 agreement. Newport sought to withdraw, claiming the agreement was terminable on reasonable notice. The Court of Appeal held the agreement was not terminable without consent, as the parties intended it to last for the facility's lifetime.
A company in liquidation sought to recover unlawful dividends paid to director-shareholders when there were no profits available for distribution. The Court of Appeal held that shareholders are liable under section 277(1) Companies Act 1985 if they knew the facts constituting the contravention, regardless of whether they knew the legal requirements prohibiting such distributions.
Professional gambler Phil Ivey won £7.7m at Punto Banco Baccarat using edge-sorting, persuading the croupier to rotate cards unwittingly. The Supreme Court held this constituted cheating, refused payment, and famously reformulated the test for dishonesty by abolishing the second limb of Ghosh.
A Moroccan mother wrongfully removed her son from Morocco to England in 2013. The father sought summary return. The Supreme Court held that the English court had jurisdiction under article 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention to order protective measures, including return, in cases of urgency.
A father successfully appealed out of time against an adoption order made in 2013 granting adoption of his son to the step-father. The mother and step-father had deceived professionals and the court by falsely claiming the father's identity was unknown.
Warehousemen stored barrels of orange juice which were returned damaged. The customer counterclaimed for negligence, but the warehousemen relied on an exemption clause in their contract conditions. The Court of Appeal held the exemption clause was incorporated through course of dealing and protected against negligence, provided there was no breach of a fundamental term.
A 14-year-old's photograph was published by police in local newspapers as part of Operation Exposure to identify rioters involved in sectarian violence in Derry. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed his article 8 challenge, with judges divided on engagement but agreeing on justification.
Mr Jackson booked a family holiday to Ceylon through Horizon Holidays which fell far short of what was promised. The hotel was substandard with mildewed rooms, dirty facilities, and poor food. The Court of Appeal upheld damages of £1,100, establishing that a contracting party can recover damages for loss suffered by third party beneficiaries of the contract.
A 13-year-old girl was struck by a car after stepping out from behind a school minibus. The driver was travelling too fast and failed to keep proper lookout. The Supreme Court reduced the girl's contributory negligence from 70% to 50%, holding both parties equally responsible for the accident.
Following a major oil spill off Nigeria's coast in December 2011, claimants argued there was a continuing nuisance while oil remained on their land, allowing fresh limitation periods. The Supreme Court held that a one-off event causing ongoing damage does not constitute a continuing nuisance; the cause of action accrued once when the oil first affected the land.
The Wall Street Journal published an article stating that Saudi authorities were monitoring bank accounts of prominent Saudi businesses, including the Jameel group, at the request of US law enforcement to prevent terrorist funding. The claimants sued for libel. The House of Lords allowed the appeal, holding that the publication was protected by Reynolds privilege as responsible journalism on a matter of genuine public interest.
One thousand cases of whisky intended for export to Iran were stolen whilst in the carrier's custody in England. The plaintiffs had to pay £30,000 excise duty to HMRC as a consequence. The Court of Appeal held the carrier liable for the full loss including the excise duty, interpreting the CMR Convention purposively rather than literally.
Police officers sued the Commissioner alleging breach of duty in defending civil proceedings brought against her based on their alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court held that no duty of care was owed to officers to conduct litigation so as to protect their economic or reputational interests, as imposing such a duty would not be fair, just or reasonable.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive