Mrs Owens petitioned for divorce under section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, alleging her husband's behaviour meant she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The Supreme Court reluctantly dismissed her appeal, prompting calls for parliamentary reform.
Mr O'Brien, a retired part-time recorder, sought a judicial pension based on all 27 years of his service. The Supreme Court considered whether service before the Part-Time Work Directive's transposition deadline should count, and referred the question to the CJEU.
Mr O'Neill, a minority shareholder in a quasi-partnership company, petitioned under section 459 Companies Act 1985 claiming unfair prejudice when profit-sharing arrangements were terminated and promised shares not allocated. The House of Lords held no unfairness existed as no binding promises had been made, establishing key principles on legitimate expectations in unfair prejudice claims.
The Supreme Court considered whether living arrangements for three mentally incapacitated individuals amounted to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR. The majority established the 'acid test': continuous supervision and control, and not free to leave, regardless of placement comfort or compliance.
A police officer with PTSD was dismissed after a misconduct hearing. The Supreme Court held that judicial immunity could not bar her Employment Tribunal discrimination claim under EU law, requiring section 42(1) of the Equality Act 2010 to be read conformably with the Framework Directive.
Mr Page, with a pre-existing chronic fatigue condition, was involved in a car collision caused by Mr Smith but suffered no physical injury. He later developed permanent relapse of his condition. The House of Lords held that as a primary victim he only needed to show foreseeable personal injury, not specifically psychiatric harm.
A psychiatric patient, Armstrong, murdered four‑year‑old Rosie Palmer. Her mother sued health authorities, alleging negligent diagnosis, treatment and failure to detain him, and claiming for her own psychiatric injury. The Court of Appeal held there was no duty of care to unidentifiable victims and her secondary victim claim failed. Appeal dismissed.
The Paos sold their company shares to Fu Chip, receiving Fu Chip shares as payment with restrictions on selling. They later demanded a guarantee from the Laus against share price falls, threatening not to complete unless given. The Privy Council held valid consideration existed and rejected the economic duress defence, establishing key principles on past consideration and economic duress.
A tenant refused to pay rent after being expelled from leased land by Prince Rupert's hostile army during the Civil War. The court held that contractual obligations to pay rent persist despite interference by enemies, as parties must provide for such contingencies in their contracts.
Mr Paris, effectively blind in one eye, was employed as a garage hand and suffered total blindness when a metal fragment entered his good eye while hammering a bolt. The House of Lords held that his known vulnerability increased his employer’s duty of care, requiring eye protection.
Mr Parker deposited a bag at Charing Cross railway station and received a ticket with an exclusion clause on the back limiting liability for items over £10. His bag was lost. The Court of Appeal held that a party is bound by exclusion clauses if given reasonable notice, establishing the 'reasonable notice' test for incorporation of exclusion clauses.
Mrs Parkinson’s sterilisation was negligently performed, leading to the birth of her disabled son Scott. The Court of Appeal held she could recover the additional costs of caring for his disabilities, but not the ordinary costs of his upbringing, distinguishing McFarlane on disabled children.
Mr Partridge advertised wild birds for sale in a magazine. He was charged with offering for sale a bramblefinch contrary to the Protection of Birds Act 1954. The court held the advertisement was merely an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale, establishing that advertisements are generally invitations to treat.
Mr and Mrs Patchett chose a swimming pool contractor from SPATA’s website, relying on statements that members were vetted and covered by a bond and warranty scheme. The contractor was only an affiliate member and became insolvent. The Court of Appeal held SPATA owed no duty of care for these website statements.
Mr Patel paid £620,000 to Mr Mirza for betting on RBS shares using insider information. The scheme failed and Mr Mirza refused to repay. The Supreme Court allowed recovery in unjust enrichment, fundamentally reshaping the illegality doctrine by replacing the rigid reliance test with a flexible public policy approach.
The Supreme Court considered two conjoined appeals on the Zambrano principle, concerning derivative residence rights for non-EU nationals caring for EU citizen dependants. Mr Patel, caring for ill British parents, lost his appeal. Mr Shah, primary carer of his British son, succeeded.
Claimants sought damages for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing deaths of close family members due to allegedly negligent medical treatment. The Supreme Court held that doctors do not owe a duty of care to patients' relatives to protect them from psychiatric harm caused by witnessing death from an untreated condition.
Payzu contracted to buy silk from Saunders by instalments. After a late payment, Saunders refused further deliveries on credit but offered cash terms. Payzu refused and sued. The court held Payzu should have mitigated by accepting the offer.
Peekay invested US$250,000 in a Russian GKO-linked structured deposit through ANZ after a bank employee gave a misleading description. The Court of Appeal held Peekay was not induced by that misrepresentation, as the final terms and signed risk disclosure statement clearly described the actual product.
Wang Global sought permission to appeal against a costs order made against it as a non-party under section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The Court of Appeal granted permission, finding it arguable that the judge below had not properly applied legal principles when exercising his discretion on non-party costs.
A developer leased part of a shopping centre to Dunnes Stores, covenanting not to allow competing large units elsewhere on the site. The developer's assignee later challenged the covenant as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court rejected the pre-existing freedom test, adopting the trading society test instead.
Schoolmasters were taxed on the benefit of concessionary school fees for their children. The House of Lords held that courts may refer to Hansard to interpret ambiguous legislation where ministerial statements clearly indicate Parliament's intention. This landmark case relaxed the exclusionary rule against using Parliamentary materials in statutory construction.
Performance Cars’ Rolls-Royce was damaged in two minor collisions before repairs were done. The first already required an expensive respray. The Court of Appeal held the second driver was not liable for that cost because his negligence caused no additional need to respray.
A retired miner with Vibration White Finger sued his former solicitors for negligently failing to advise him to claim a Services Award. The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's decision, holding the claimant had failed to prove he would have made an honest claim.
A wife sought ancillary relief following divorce, claiming properties legally owned by companies controlled by her husband. The Supreme Court held that while the corporate veil could not be pierced under general law or the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the properties were held on resulting trust for the husband and could be transferred to the wife.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive