Case summaries

Mr Champion challenged planning permission granted by North Norfolk District Council for silos and a lorry park near the River Wensum, a protected Special Area of Conservation. The Supreme Court held that although EIA screening was defective, relief should be refused as the outcome would not have differed.

ClientEarth challenged the UK Government's continuing failure since 2010 to meet EU nitrogen dioxide limits under Directive 2008/50/EC. Following a CJEU reference, the Supreme Court granted a mandatory order requiring new air quality plans by 31 December 2015.

The UK conceded it had breached the Air Quality Directive's nitrogen dioxide limits in most of its zones. Reversing the courts below, the Supreme Court granted a declaration of breach of article 13 and referred questions on articles 22, 23 and remedies to the CJEU.

Data centre developers claimed enterprise zone capital allowances for construction expenditure incurred in the second 10-year period under a 'golden contract' made within the first period. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 298 requires contractual commitment to the specific expenditure by the tenth anniversary, not merely that expenditure occurs under a varied version of the original contract.

A female life prisoner released on licence challenged the distribution of Approved Premises, arguing it forced women to live far from home unlike men. The Supreme Court held this constituted unjustified direct sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

PH, a severely disabled adult lacking capacity, had lived with foster parents in South Gloucestershire from age four after being placed there by Wiltshire under the Children Act 1989. The Supreme Court held that Wiltshire, the placing authority, remained responsible for his care upon reaching majority.

Lone parents of young children challenged the revised benefit cap under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, arguing it unlawfully discriminated against them and their children contrary to Article 14 ECHR. The Supreme Court, by a 5-2 majority, dismissed the appeals.

Disabled tenants and a domestic violence victim in a sanctuary scheme challenged the social sector housing benefit cap (the 'bedroom tax') as discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The Supreme Court upheld claims by Carmichael and the Rutherfords but rejected the others, including A's sanctuary scheme claim.

Dr Day challenged planning permission granted for housing development on land forming part of Greenfields Recreation Ground. The land had been sold by Shrewsbury Town Council to a developer without complying with statutory advertising requirements for disposal of land held on statutory trust for public recreation. The Supreme Court held the statutory trust was not extinguished by the sale.

Taxpayers in film partnership tax avoidance schemes claimed loss relief by carrying back partnership losses in their self-assessment returns. The Supreme Court held HMRC could challenge these claims through section 9A enquiries into the returns, not solely under Schedule 1A.

Mr Derry bought shares for £500,000 and sold them at a loss, claiming share loss relief against his 2009/10 income. HMRC challenged the claim procedurally. The Supreme Court held he was entitled to claim relief in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act 2007.

A Rwandan refugee was detained pending deportation based on the 2004 Order specifying particularly serious crimes. The Order was later declared ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that detention founded on an unlawful deportation order was itself unlawful, entitling the appellant to pursue damages for false imprisonment.

HMRC officers detained alcoholic goods at warehouses pending enquiries into whether excise duty had been paid. The Supreme Court held that detention was lawful under the statutory power of examination, not section 139(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which requires actual liability to forfeiture.

The appellant, who identifies as non-gendered, challenged the Home Secretary's policy requiring passports to display only male or female gender markers. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that neither Article 8 nor Article 14 of the ECHR imposed an obligation on the UK to issue passports with an 'X' (non-gendered) marker.

Four Eritrean and Iranian asylum seekers and refugees resisted removal from the UK to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation, alleging article 3 ECHR breaches. The Supreme Court held that a 'systemic deficiency' in Italy's asylum system was not required; the Soering real risk test applies.

Journalist Rob Evans sought disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers. The Upper Tribunal ordered disclosure, but the Attorney General issued a section 53 certificate overriding the decision. The Supreme Court held the certificate unlawful, upholding judicial supremacy over executive override.

Two sex offenders subject to indefinite notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 challenged the absence of any review mechanism. The Supreme Court held that lifelong notification without review was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights.

Two indeterminate-sentence prisoners suffered delays, breaching article 5(4) ECHR, in Parole Board reviews after their tariffs expired. The Supreme Court held such delay is not false imprisonment nor usually an article 5(1) breach, but modest damages under section 8 HRA 1998 are normally payable, guided by Strasbourg practice.

Welsh Local Health Boards set a flat weekly rate for funding registered nurses in care homes, excluding personal care and certain other time. The Supreme Court held this misinterpreted section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and quashed the decisions.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Heathrow Airport Ltd's appeal, overturning the Court of Appeal and holding that the Secretary of State lawfully designated the Airports National Policy Statement supporting a third runway at Heathrow, having adequately considered climate change obligations including the Paris Agreement.

Fylde Coast Farms challenged a neighbourhood development plan, arguing the council unlawfully rejected an examiner's recommendation. The challenge was filed within time to contest the plan's making but outside the time limit for challenging the council's earlier decision. The Supreme Court held section 61N restricts, rather than creates, challenge rights, requiring timely challenges to each step.

Tobacco manufacturers and retailers entered Early Resolution Agreements with the OFT but did not appeal. When the OFT repaid another party (TMR) following a mistaken assurance, the respondents claimed unequal treatment. The Supreme Court held the OFT's differential treatment was objectively justified and rational.

Mr George, a convicted drug dealer with indefinite leave to remain, faced deportation but succeeded on Article 8 grounds, revoking the order. The Supreme Court held that revocation of a deportation order does not revive previously invalidated indefinite leave to remain.

Mr Gibson, convicted of drug trafficking, faced a £5.4m confiscation order with a six-year default prison term. The Supreme Court held that credit for part payments should be calculated against the original sum, not the sum plus accrued interest, entitling him to 11 extra days' reduction.

A life prisoner successfully challenged a Parole Board decision refusing transfer to open conditions but was denied costs. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding that costs principles are matters of practice for the Court of Appeal, and the established Davies practice applied to the Board.