Four part-time fee-paid judges claimed pension entitlements under the Part-time Workers Regulations 2000. The Supreme Court held that time for bringing a claim runs from retirement, not from the end of each fee-paid appointment, allowing their claims to proceed.
Following divorce, the wife received capital to purchase a mortgage-free home but lost it through unwise property transactions, requiring her to pay rent. The Supreme Court held the court was entitled to decline increasing periodical payments to cover rent, restoring the trial judge's order.
Veterans of British nuclear tests claimed injuries from radiation exposure. The Supreme Court considered whether their claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, specifically examining when 'knowledge' of attributability arose for limitation purposes. The majority held that subjective belief could constitute knowledge, dismissing the appeals.
Iraqi civilians sued the MoD in England for alleged mistreatment by British forces in Iraq. The Supreme Court held that Iraqi limitation law applied but the suspensory provision in article 435 did not extend the period, as CPA Order 17's bar on Iraqi proceedings was irrelevant to English proceedings.
A Polish national and an Austrian national, both EU citizens lacking worker status, were refused income support and housing assistance respectively in the UK. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeals, holding that EU law permits exclusion of economically inactive EU nationals from social assistance.
Mr Mirvahedy was seriously injured when his car collided with a horse that had escaped from the Henleys' field after being frightened and stampeding through fences. Despite no negligence by the horse owners, the House of Lords held they were strictly liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 for damage caused by characteristics normal to horses only in particular circumstances.
Executive directors Ronald and Emma Sinclair were dismissed by non-executive directors for alleged unacceptable conduct. They sought interim injunctions to restore them to employment and directorships, and permission to continue a derivative claim. The court refused both the injunctive relief and permission to continue the derivative action, but allowed joinder of defendants to the counterclaim.
Joint liquidators sued Sheikh Al Jaber for equitable compensation after he dishonestly transferred 891,761 shares owned by a company in liquidation to another entity he controlled. The Supreme Court held that by purporting to exercise directorial powers after liquidation, the Sheikh assumed fiduciary duties and breached them, restoring the trial judge's award of approximately €67 million.
James Mitchell, aged 72, was fatally assaulted by his neighbour James Drummond following years of threats and anti-social behaviour. Mitchell's widow and daughter sued Glasgow City Council, their landlord, alleging the Council owed a duty of care to warn Mitchell about a meeting with Drummond concerning potential eviction. The court allowed proof before answer on the warning duty but rejected the duty to instigate eviction proceedings.
Pirates seized MV Longchamp in the Gulf of Aden, demanding $6m ransom. The owners negotiated for 51 days, settling at $1.85m. The Supreme Court held that vessel-operating expenses incurred during the negotiation period were allowable in general average under Rule F of the York-Antwerp Rules 1974.
A customer at a petrol station was subjected to an unprovoked violent racist attack by an employee after making a routine enquiry. The Supreme Court held the employer vicariously liable, applying the 'close connection' test. The employee's assault was a seamless continuation of his interaction with the customer within his field of employment.
Katie Hopkins tweeted suggesting food blogger Jack Monroe had vandalised, or condoned vandalism of, a war memorial, having confused her with another writer. Warby J held the tweets defamatory, satisfied the s.1 Defamation Act 2013 serious harm test, and awarded £24,000.
Monsanto sought injunctions against protesters who uprooted genetically modified crops as part of their GenetiX Snowball campaign. The defendants argued their actions were justified by necessity and public interest concerns about GM crop dangers. The Court of Appeal allowed Monsanto's appeal, holding that no defence of necessity or public interest could justify deliberate trespass to publicise a cause.
Mrs Montgomery, a diabetic woman of small stature, was not warned by her obstetrician about the 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery. Her son suffered severe disabilities during birth. The Supreme Court held doctors must inform patients of material risks, departing from the Bolam test for disclosure of treatment risks.
Two convicted prisoners challenged the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013, which barred prisoners from voting in the 2014 independence referendum. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal, holding that A3P1 ECHR, EU law, the ICCPR, and the common law did not confer a right to vote in the referendum.
A Dublin-incorporated company claimed leasehold property in London. The defendant tenants argued the company's title was forfeited under the Mortmain Acts as it was a foreign corporation without licence to hold land. The Court of Appeal held the earlier Morelle case was binding and not decided per incuriam, establishing strict limits on when courts may depart from precedent.
A UK resident severely injured by an uninsured Greek driver in Greece sued the UK Motor Insurers' Bureau. The Supreme Court held that the scope of compensation must be determined by Greek law, the law of the place of the accident, overruling Jacobs and Bloy.
Terrorist prisoners challenged legislation extending their custodial periods from half to two-thirds of their sentences before eligibility for parole. The Supreme Court held this change related to execution of sentence, not the penalty itself, and therefore did not breach Article 7 or Article 5 ECHR.
Majority shareholders holding 75% of shares petitioned under s.459 Companies Act 1985 to compel minority shareholder to sell his 25% stake after his dismissal as employee and director. The Court of Appeal held that s.459 is designed to protect minorities from abuse by those in control, not to enable majority shareholders to force out minority shareholders who no longer participate in management.
The liquidators of BCCI sought contribution from Bank of India under section 213 Insolvency Act 1986 for fraudulent trading. The central issue was whether Mr Samant's blind-eye knowledge of BCCI's fraud could be attributed to Bank of India. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Bank of India was knowingly a party to fraudulent trading through attribution of its senior employee's knowledge.
The plaintiff went on a flight with a pilot who had consumed the equivalent of 17 whiskies after spending the afternoon drinking together. The aircraft crashed, killing the pilot and severely injuring the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied, as the plaintiff had knowingly and willingly embarked on an obviously dangerous activity.
The first defendant sold her interest in a care support business and agreed to non-compete, non-solicit and confidentiality covenants, which she breached by running a rival company. The Supreme Court held negotiating damages were unavailable; ordinary compensatory damages must be assessed.
Mr Moulsdale sold property without charging VAT, believing Schedule 10 VATA disapplied his option to tax. HMRC assessed him for VAT. The Supreme Court held that when determining if a grantor is a 'developer of land', the intention regarding VAT-bearing capital expenditure must relate to expenditure other than the acquisition cost of the very transaction being assessed.
The defendant granted the plaintiffs an option to purchase his house for £10,000, receiving £1 consideration. He later attempted to withdraw but the plaintiffs exercised the option. The Court of Appeal upheld specific performance, confirming that nominal consideration supports a valid irrevocable option, and the resulting contract was enforceable.
A Sri Lankan former LTTE member, tortured by state forces, suffered severe PTSD and suicidality. The UK Supreme Court considered whether his risk on return engaged subsidiary protection under the Qualification Directive and referred the question to the CJEU.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive