Anisminic Ltd claimed compensation for their Egyptian mining property sequestrated during the Suez crisis. The Foreign Compensation Commission rejected their claim. The House of Lords held that the 'ouster clause' protecting the Commission's determinations from court challenge did not protect decisions made in excess of jurisdiction, establishing that tribunals cannot determine the limits of their own powers.
Lessees of maisonettes sued the local council after structural defects emerged due to inadequate foundations. The House of Lords established a two-stage test for determining duty of care in negligence: first examining proximity and foreseeability, then considering policy reasons against imposing such duty.
Mr Anson, a UK resident non-domiciled taxpayer, was a member of a Delaware LLC and paid US tax on his share of its profits. The Supreme Court held he was entitled to double taxation relief because UK and US taxes were computed by reference to the same income.
Lithuanian chicken catchers brought claims against their employer company and its directors for systematic exploitation including underpayment below agricultural minimum wage, unlawful deductions for employment fees and accommodation, and failure to pay holiday pay. The court granted summary judgment for claimants and held directors personally liable for inducing breaches of contract.
Ms Anwar suffered workplace harassment and obtained an employment tribunal award against her former employer, but could not recover payment as the employer allegedly dissipated funds. She claimed the UK failed to implement EU Equality Directives by not enabling employment tribunals to grant interim diligence. The Supreme Court held Scottish courts could grant such warrants in ancillary proceedings and this did not breach EU effectiveness principles.
A French father sought the return of his two young daughters from Scotland under the Hague Convention, arguing they remained habitually resident in France. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding the children had become habitually resident in Scotland after four months of stable residence.
Mr Arbuthnott, a minority shareholder in a private equity company, challenged the compulsory acquisition of his shares at £1,500 per share by majority shareholders via a special purpose vehicle. He claimed unfair prejudice under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, holding that the amendment to the articles of association and the acquisition were valid and not unfairly prejudicial.
A salvage company sought to claim salvage rights over silver cargo recovered from a ship sunk in 1942. The silver belonged to South Africa and was intended for minting coins. The Supreme Court held South Africa was entitled to state immunity from the in rem claim because the cargo was intended for sovereign, non-commercial purposes.
A child placed in foster care by a local authority was physically and sexually abused by two sets of foster parents. The claimant sued the local authority, which had not been negligent in selecting or supervising the foster parents. The Supreme Court held the local authority vicariously liable for the foster parents' torts, establishing that foster parents act as an integral part of the authority's child care services.
Ms Armstead hired a car which was damaged in an accident caused by another driver. The hire agreement required her to pay the hire company for its loss of use during repairs. The Supreme Court held she could recover this sum from the negligent driver's insurer, clarifying that such contractual liabilities are recoverable if they reasonably estimate the hire company's loss.
Lessees of holiday chalets challenged the interpretation of service charge provisions requiring payment of £90 annually, increasing by 10% compound each year. The Supreme Court held that despite producing commercially harsh results, the natural meaning of the clause required fixed payments as stated, not a cap on proportionate costs. The case reaffirms that courts should not rewrite contracts to relieve parties from imprudent bargains.
A Pakistani Ahmadi convert appealed against the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's decision to overturn a Special Adjudicator's grant of asylum. The Court of Appeal found the IAT's reasoning on internal flight was flawed for failing to consider all relevant evidence about the appellant's circumstances and the situation in Karachi, remitting the case for rehearing.
Three clients sued their solicitors for negligence in civil litigation matters. The House of Lords was asked whether advocates' immunity from negligence claims should continue. The House unanimously abolished the immunity for civil proceedings, fundamentally changing the law to allow clients to sue negligent advocates.
Female retail employees at Asda brought equal pay claims comparing their pay to predominantly male distribution depot workers. The Supreme Court held they could use depot workers as comparators despite working at different establishments, as the 'common terms' requirement was satisfied through the North hypothetical test. This clarifies the threshold for cross-establishment comparisons in equal pay claims.
Following the fatal police shooting of an unarmed James Ashley during a raid, his family sought disclosure of the officer's disciplinary files in civil proceedings. Despite privacy objections from the intervening officer, the court permitted inspection, balancing privacy rights against the public interest in achieving a fair outcome in important litigation.
Aspect carried out an asbestos survey for Higgins. An adjudicator ordered Aspect to pay Higgins £658,017. After limitation expired on Higgins's underlying claim, Aspect sued to recover the payment. The Supreme Court held an implied term or restitutionary right allowed recovery within six years of payment.
Insurers sought to recover settlement payments made after a vessel was deliberately scuttled. The Bank, as assignee and loss payee under the marine insurance policy, challenged English court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held the Bank was entitled to protection under EU Regulation section 3 on insurance matters and must be sued in its domicile (Netherlands).
An Iranian national sought asylum in the Netherlands, claiming he faced persecution for political activities with the Fedayeen organisation. After being granted a residence permit, he withdrew his application. The Court struck the case from its list as the applicant no longer wished to pursue it.
The Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment for the Duchess of Sussex against Associated Newspapers for misuse of private information and copyright infringement, after the Mail published extensive extracts from her handwritten letter to her father. Publication was disproportionate to any right of reply.
A cinema company challenged a local authority's condition prohibiting children under 15 from Sunday performances. The Court of Appeal held courts can only interfere with executive discretion if the authority acted unreasonably in the legal sense - taking irrelevant matters into account, ignoring relevant ones, or reaching a decision no reasonable authority could reach. This established the foundational principles of judicial review.
Atlas threatened to withhold deliveries unless Kafco agreed to substantially higher carriage charges, despite an existing contract. The court held the variation unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration and because Kafco’s apparent consent was obtained through economic duress.
Mrs Attia witnessed her home burning for over four hours due to British Gas's negligent installation of central heating. She claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by the shock of seeing her property destroyed. The Court of Appeal held that such claims are not barred as a matter of law where property damage alone causes foreseeable psychiatric injury.
Dispute over whether directors appointed by a special shareholder holding a specified proportion of shares should vacate office when that shareholding threshold was no longer met. The Privy Council held that such a term should be implied into the articles of association, establishing the authoritative test for implied terms in contracts.
Mr Reid, a Hong Kong prosecutor, accepted bribes and invested them in New Zealand properties. The Privy Council held that a fiduciary who accepts bribes holds them on constructive trust for the principal, overruling Lister v Stubbs. The principal can claim any increase in value of the bribe property.
The War Office took possession of De Keyser's Royal Hotel during WWI for housing Royal Flying Corps staff. The Crown claimed it acted under prerogative, owing only ex gratia compensation. The House of Lords held statutory powers under the Defence Act 1842 applied, entitling the owners to compensation.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive