The Home Secretary issued a £15,000 civil penalty notice to a Middlesbrough restaurant for employing an illegal worker, citing all three mutually exclusive limbs of section 15(1) of the 2006 Act without specifying which applied. The Supreme Court held the notice was invalid for failing to give proper reasons.
The Supreme Court held that article 24(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation must be interpreted strictly. English courts had no jurisdiction over the authority claim challenging the Turkish trustees' appointment, as that claim's principal subject matter concerned a Turkish company's internal affairs.
Turkish security forces burned applicants' homes in 1992, forcing them to abandon their village. The Court awarded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage following its principal judgment finding violations of Article 8, Article 1 Protocol 1, and Article 25 of the Convention.
A disabled tenant resisted possession proceedings brought by a social landlord, raising a disability discrimination defence under the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court held that such defences require a different, more rigorous approach than Article 8 defences, but dismissed his appeal on the facts.
Mr Al-Sanea held Saudi Arabian shares on trust for Saad Investments Co Ltd (SICL) and, six weeks after SICL's winding up commenced, transferred them to Samba to discharge personal debts. The Supreme Court held this was not a 'disposition' of SICL's property under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Mr Aksoy was detained by Turkish police for at least fourteen days without judicial supervision and subjected to 'Palestinian hanging' torture, causing bilateral arm paralysis. The Court found Turkey violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5(3) (right to prompt judicial review), and Article 13 (right to effective remedy). This landmark case established that torture victims must have access to thorough investigations.
A British/Kuwaiti national alleged torture by Kuwaiti state agents and sought civil damages in English courts. The UK courts granted Kuwait state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. The European Court of Human Rights held that granting state immunity did not violate Article 6 § 1, as international law had not yet established an exception to state immunity for civil torture claims.
Two detainees, captured by British forces during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, sued for unlawful detention under Article 5 ECHR. The Supreme Court held that UN Security Council Resolutions authorised detention for imperative security reasons, with Article 5 modified accordingly, though procedural safeguards were inadequate.
Albert assaulted an off-duty plain-clothes police constable who was restraining him to prevent a breach of the peace at a bus stop. The House of Lords confirmed that every citizen has the right and duty to take reasonable steps, including detention, to prevent a breach of the peace.
Following the Hillsborough disaster where 95 people died in a stadium crush, relatives and friends of victims claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing the events on television or at the ground. The House of Lords dismissed all appeals, establishing that recovery for nervous shock requires proximity in time, space, and relationship to the primary victim.
A financially distressed garage company challenged a lease-and-leaseback arrangement with Total Oil. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that financial disadvantage alone did not establish an unconscionable bargain where there was no morally culpable exploitation and the plaintiffs had received independent legal advice.
A property developer, Millgate, built 13 affordable housing units in cynical breach of a restrictive covenant benefiting a children's cancer hospice. The Supreme Court refused modification of the covenant under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, dismissing the appeal.
A Sri Lankan citizen was refused leave to enter the UK as a student because the immigration officer was not satisfied she intended to leave after completing her studies. The House of Lords held that Rule 21 of the Immigration Rules gave the immigration officer discretion to admit her for a short period despite not satisfying all requirements.
A container vessel grounded after leaving Xiamen port due to a defective passage plan that failed to note warnings about uncharted depths outside the fairway. The Supreme Court held that the defective passage plan rendered the vessel unseaworthy and the carrier could not rely on the nautical fault exception under the Hague Rules.
Miss Allcard transferred substantial property while under the influence of a religious sisterhood. The Court of Appeal held the gifts were voidable for presumed undue influence, but her six-year delay after leaving the order barred recovery through laches and acquiescence.
Allied Maples acquired businesses from the Gillow Group but received negligent advice from their solicitors regarding protection against contingent liabilities from assigned leases. The Court of Appeal established that where loss depends on a third party's hypothetical actions, a claimant need only prove a substantial chance of success, with evaluation of that chance being a matter of damages quantification.
A Zimbabwean national with HIV challenged deportation under Article 3 ECHR, arguing removal would deny him access to life-sustaining medication. The Supreme Court departed from the restrictive N v SSHD approach, adopting the broader Paposhvili test for assessing medical cases under Article 3, and remitted the case for rehearing.
Swiss authorities intercepted a telephone call Mr Amann received from the Soviet embassy and created a card labelling him a 'contact with the Russian embassy', storing it in the federal security index. The Court found violations of Article 8 as Swiss law lacked sufficient clarity regarding surveillance scope and data storage conditions.
Ms Ahmed, of northern Sudanese origin, was denied promotion to Amnesty's Sudan researcher post due to impartiality and safety concerns linked to her ethnicity. The EAT upheld direct race discrimination but overturned the constructive unfair dismissal finding.
Amoena imported a Carmen mastectomy bra designed to hold silicone breast forms for post-mastectomy women. The Supreme Court held it should be classified as an 'accessory' to an artificial body part under chapter 90, attracting zero duty rather than 6.5% as a brassière.
AMTF, a London broker, sued German lawyers MMGR in England for inducing former clients to breach exclusive English jurisdiction clauses by suing AMTF in Germany. The Supreme Court held English courts lacked jurisdiction under article 5.3, as the harm occurred in Germany.
Four Somali asylum-seekers were held in the transit zone of Paris-Orly Airport for twenty days without adequate legal basis or judicial review before being returned to Syria. The European Court of Human Rights found France violated Article 5(1), establishing that holding asylum-seekers in transit zones constitutes deprivation of liberty requiring legal safeguards.
Mr Y suffered severe brain damage following cardiac arrest and required clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. His family and clinicians agreed withdrawal was in his best interests. The Supreme Court held court approval is not legally required where there is agreement and proper procedures are followed.
Polish authorities sought extradition of the appellant to serve a two-year sentence for fraud offences. The Supreme Court addressed conflicting approaches in the King's Bench Division regarding the relevance of Polish early release provisions to article 8 ECHR proportionality assessments in extradition cases.
Anglia Television abandoned a film after actor Robert Reed repudiated his contract. The Court of Appeal held that the company could recover its wasted expenditure, including costs incurred before the contract, where those losses were reasonably foreseeable as likely to be wasted by the breach.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive