Mr Jarvis, a solicitor, booked a Swiss skiing holiday based on a brochure promising house parties, entertainment, and ski facilities. The holiday fell far short of these promises. The Court of Appeal held that damages for breach of a holiday contract can include compensation for disappointment, distress and loss of enjoyment, not just financial loss.
Parents wrongly suspected of child abuse sought damages for psychiatric injury caused by doctors' negligent misdiagnosis. The House of Lords held that healthcare professionals investigating child abuse owe no duty of care to parents, only to the child, due to the potential conflict of interest between protecting children and parents' interests.
Executors sought to prove the 2017 Will of Robert Glyn Evans against his daughter Caroline's challenge alleging lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, and undue influence. The High Court pronounced in favour of the 2017 Will, rejecting all grounds of challenge.
The claimant suffered an ankle fracture due to the defendant council's negligence. The defendant sought to amend its defence to argue that negligent NHS surgery broke the chain of causation. The District Judge refused permission, but the High Court allowed the appeal, holding there is no rule requiring 'grossly negligent' medical treatment to break causation.
Mr Jennings cared for elderly Mrs Royle unpaid for years, relying on her assurances that 'this will all be yours one day'. She died intestate. The Court of Appeal upheld an award of £200,000 under proprietary estoppel, confirming relief must be proportionate to detriment, not automatically match expectation.
Jersey Choice Ltd, a Jersey-based horticultural mail order company, claimed Francovich damages against HM Treasury for allegedly breaching EU law by removing Low Value Consignment Relief from Channel Islands imports only. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the measure was a fiscal matter, not customs, and Jersey was a third territory for VAT purposes.
Mr Jobling injured his back at work due to his employer's negligence, reducing his earning capacity by 50%. Before trial, he developed unrelated myelopathy rendering him totally unfit for work. The House of Lords held that this supervening illness must be taken into account when assessing damages for loss of earnings, distinguishing Baker v Willoughby.
The Supreme Court held, by a 3-2 majority, that where HMRC withdrew approval of a pension scheme retrospectively under section 591B(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the 40% tax charge under section 591C fell to be assessed in the tax year with effect from which approval ceased, not the year the notice was issued.
Mr Johnson, who conducted business through his company Westway Homes Limited, sued solicitors Gore Wood & Co. for professional negligence, claiming personal losses arising from their negligent handling of a property option. The House of Lords held his personal action was not an abuse of process despite the company having previously settled its own claim against the same solicitors.
Workers negligently exposed to asbestos developed pleural plaques, which are asymptomatic fibrous changes in the lung lining. The House of Lords held that symptomless plaques alone, or combined with risk of future disease and anxiety, do not constitute actionable damage in negligence. Psychiatric illness from fear of future disease was also not recoverable without specific foreseeability.
A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured when an abandoned boat, left on council land for years, collapsed on him while he attempted to repair it. The House of Lords held the council liable, finding it reasonably foreseeable that children would meddle with the abandoned boat and risk physical injury.
Mr Jones challenged the civil standard of proof applied in gang injunction proceedings under the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The Supreme Court held that Article 6(1) ECHR does not require the criminal standard of proof in such civil proceedings, dismissing the appeal.
Mr Jones, a gritter driver, was gravely injured when a lorry braked to avoid a man who ran onto the carriageway intending suicide. The First-tier Tribunal found no section 20 offence proved. The Supreme Court allowed CICA's appeal, holding the Court of Appeal wrongly interfered with a factual finding.
A claimant in a personal injury case sued his expert witness psychologist for negligently signing a joint statement that damaged his case and led to a reduced settlement. The Supreme Court abolished the immunity from negligence claims that expert witnesses had previously enjoyed when providing evidence for their instructing clients.
An unmarried couple jointly purchased a family home. After separation, Mr Kernott left and stopped contributing to the property while Ms Jones remained with the children and paid all expenses. The Supreme Court held that the parties' beneficial interests had changed over time, awarding Ms Jones 90% and Mr Kernott 10%.
A mother promised her daughter maintenance to study for the Bar in England, later purchasing a house for her to live in. When the relationship broke down, the mother sought possession. The Court of Appeal held there was no legally binding contract, only a family arrangement not intended to create legal relations.
Hugh Jordan's son was shot by an RUC officer in 1992. After decades of delayed inquests, Jordan sought damages under the Human Rights Act for Article 2 breaches. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeal wrongly imposed a near-automatic stay on such claims pending inquest conclusion.
Miss Marnell repeatedly declared she had abandoned a £1200 bond debt owed by William Money, and his marriage proceeded on this faith. After her own marriage, she sought to enforce the bond. The House of Lords held that a representation of intention is not the same as a misrepresentation of fact, and cannot ground an estoppel.
A dispute arose between musical performers and a booking agency over breach of contract. The agency posted defamatory comments on their website about the performers' professionalism. The Supreme Court considered the defence of fair comment in defamation law, clarifying that a comment need only identify its subject matter in general terms, not enable readers to evaluate the comment themselves.
A water well engineering company lost its gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme due to late PAYE payments. The Supreme Court held HMRC was not required to consider the cancellation's business impact, dismissing the appeal on statutory construction and human rights grounds.
JR123, convicted of arson in 1980 and sentenced to five years imprisonment, challenged the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 as incompatible with Article 8 ECHR. He argued the Order should provide individualised review mechanisms for serious offenders to have convictions treated as spent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the category-based rehabilitation scheme fell within the state's margin of appreciation.
A former nurse at Muckamore Abbey Hospital challenged the Minister of Health's refusal to suspend a public inquiry into patient abuse pending her criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that under section 13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005, necessity applies to both the decision to suspend and the period of suspension, not merely the duration.
A widow complained to the Northern Ireland Complaints Commissioner about her late husband's GP care. The Commissioner recommended the GP pay £10,000. The Supreme Court held the Commissioner had no power to recommend monetary redress against a private practitioner or issue a special report on non-compliance.
The Supreme Court considered whether a defendant's rights under loan agreements, and the proceeds thereof, fell within a standard form freezing order. The Bank held US$4.4 billion in unpaid judgments against Mr Ablyazov. The Court held the right to draw down was not an 'asset' but the loan proceeds were caught by the extended definition.
JSC BTA Bank alleged Mr Khrapunov conspired with his father-in-law Mr Ablyazov to hide assets in breach of freezing and receivership orders. The Supreme Court held contempt of court could constitute unlawful means for conspiracy, and English courts had jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention as the conspiratorial agreement was made in England.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive