A journalist complained that Austrian courts failed to protect his reputation after being accused in a magazine of being part of a 'hunting society' that drove a professor to suicide. The ECtHR held that Austria violated Article 8 by failing to balance the applicant's right to reputation against freedom of expression, as the accusations lacked sufficient factual basis.
Pham, born in Vietnam and naturalised British, was stripped of UK citizenship over alleged Al Qaida links. He claimed this rendered him stateless as Vietnam refused to recognise him. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding he retained Vietnamese nationality under Vietnamese law.
Boots introduced a self-service system where customers selected items from shelves and paid at a cashier supervised by a pharmacist. The Pharmaceutical Society alleged this breached the requirement for poison sales to be supervised by a pharmacist. The Court held the sale occurred at the cashier, not when items were picked up.
Storkwain Ltd, a pharmacy, supplied controlled medicines on the basis of forged prescriptions which they believed to be genuine. The House of Lords held that the offence under section 58(2)(a) of the Medicines Act 1968 is one of strict liability and does not require proof of mens rea.
Several linked appeals considered whether local education authorities and their staff could be liable in negligence for failures in identifying and addressing children’s special educational needs. The House of Lords recognised duties of care, allowed most appeals, and treated educational under-provision as actionable damage, including economic loss.
Mrs Philipp was deceived by fraudsters into instructing Barclays Bank to transfer £700,000 to accounts in the UAE. She claimed the Bank owed a duty not to execute her payment instructions if it had reasonable grounds to believe she was being defrauded. The Supreme Court held no such duty exists for authorised push payment fraud where the customer personally instructs the bank.
Phillips hired a JCB excavator and driver from Hamstead. The driver negligently damaged Phillips' building. Hamstead relied on a contract condition transferring liability to the hirer. The Court of Appeal held the exclusion clause failed the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Mr Shepherd, a 50% shareholder in a quasi-partnership company, was wrongfully excluded from management by co-director Mr Williamson following a protected disclosure about bid-rigging. The court found unfair prejudice under s.994 Companies Act 2006 and ordered Mr Williamson to purchase Mr Shepherd's shares at their value on the date of exclusion.
Securicor's employee deliberately started a fire at Photo Production's factory, causing £615,000 damage. The House of Lords held that exclusion clauses remain enforceable despite fundamental breach, rejecting the 'rule of law' doctrine. The case established that such clauses are matters of contractual construction.
Female warehouse operatives claimed equal pay with a male checker warehouse operative whose work was of equal value to theirs. The employer argued the claim was barred because a man did the same work as the women. The House of Lords held that section 1(2)(c) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 must be construed purposively to comply with European Community law obligations.
Mr Smith, a plumber engaged by Pimlico Plumbers under contracts labelling him self-employed, brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions, holiday pay and disability discrimination. The Supreme Court held he was a 'limb (b) worker', allowing his statutory claims to proceed.
An 18-year-old pillion passenger, jointly engaged with a drunk, unlicensed rider in a reckless and illegal motorcycling escapade, was seriously injured in a collision. The Court of Appeal held that public policy barred his negligence claim against the rider’s estate, despite statutory abolition of volenti.
PJS, an entertainer in a same-sex marriage with children, sought to restrain publication of details of an extramarital threesome. Despite widespread internet and overseas disclosure, the Supreme Court reinstated the interim injunction, prioritising privacy and the children's interests over press freedom.
Planche, a dramatist, was engaged to write an article on costume for a juvenile publication. When defendants discontinued the publication before completion, Planche sued for work already done. The court held he could recover on a quantum meruit for partial performance rendered useless by the defendants' breach.
The Playboy Club sought to bring a deceit claim against BNL after losing a negligence claim concerning a fraudulent credit reference provided by a bank employee. The Court of Appeal held it was not an abuse of process to bring the separate deceit claim, as significant new evidence emerged during the negligence trial.
Mrs Plevin obtained a loan and PPI policy via a broker, with 71.8% of the premium taken as undisclosed commission. The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of the commission amount rendered the debtor-creditor relationship unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Following Mrs Plevin's successful PPI mis-selling claim, the Supreme Court considered whether her solicitors' success fee and ATE insurance premium remained recoverable after LASPO 2012, where the CFA and policy had been varied to cover appeals post-commencement. The court held they were recoverable.
Magmatic, maker of the Trunki ride-on children's suitcase, sued PMS for infringing its Community Registered Design through the similar Kiddee Case. The Supreme Court dismissed Magmatic's appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal correctly found no infringement given the different overall impression.
A man arrested but never charged in connection with the Oxford child sex grooming investigation sought an injunction preventing newspapers from identifying him as a suspect referred to during the open criminal trial. The Supreme Court refused, upholding open justice and press freedom.
Two vulnerable children suffered years of harassment from neighbours after being housed next to a persistently anti-social family. They sued the local authority for failing to protect them under its Children Act functions. The Supreme Court held no common law duty of care arose on the pleaded facts.
A double derivative action brought by John Snr's sons against their uncle Ronald, alleging he fraudulently transferred Casterbridge's assets to himself or his family's trust, depriving them of their 30% entitlement. The court dismissed all claims, finding no fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or de facto directorship established.
Romanian authorities sought extradition of Mr Popoviciu following conviction for fraud. He alleged his trial was flagrantly unfair due to undisclosed corrupt relationship between the trial judge and a key prosecution witness. The Supreme Court addressed whether proving past flagrant denial of justice requires balance of probabilities or merely showing real risk.
The Supreme Court considered whether the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 extends to shared estate facilities used by occupants of multiple buildings. The Court held it does not, overruling Gala Unity. RTM companies can only manage their specific building and exclusively-used facilities.
An Iranian refugee with PTSD refused a council flat, claiming a round window reminded her of her prison cell. The Supreme Court upheld the council's decision and declined to depart from Ali v Birmingham, holding article 6 did not apply to homelessness duties.
A Russian billionaire's ex-wife sought financial relief in England under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 after their Russian divorce. The Supreme Court addressed the test for setting aside leave to apply for such relief, ruling that respondents have an unconditional right to argue against leave granted without notice.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive