Case summaries

Haringey Council consulted residents on its Council Tax Reduction Scheme but presented reducing council tax support as inevitable, without mentioning alternative ways of absorbing the government funding shortfall. The Supreme Court held the consultation was unlawful, endorsing the Sedley/Gunning criteria for fair consultation.

Mr Mott, a salmon fisherman with leasehold rights to a putcher rank in the Severn Estuary, challenged the Environment Agency's severe catch limits as breaching A1P1. The Supreme Court held that imposing conditions eliminating 95% of his livelihood without compensation was a disproportionate burden.

Newby Foods challenged the Food Standards Agency's moratorium classifying its desinewed pork and chicken products as mechanically separated meat (MSM) under EU Regulation 853/2004. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the CJEU had clearly ruled such products constitute MSM.

Newhaven Port challenged East Sussex County Council's decision to register West Beach as a village green under the Commons Act 2006. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding harbour byelaws gave implied permission for recreational use, and registration was statutorily incompatible with operating a working harbour.

Three severely disabled men sought relief from laws criminalising assisted suicide. They argued section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 breached article 8 ECHR, and that DPP prosecution guidelines lacked clarity. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but indicated Parliament should reconsider the issue.

An Algerian national, married to a French EEA national and with permanent residence rights in the UK, challenged his administrative detention pending a deportation decision under the EEA Regulations 2006. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the regulations' compatibility with EU law.

Kevin Nunn, convicted of murder in 2006, sought ongoing police disclosure and re-testing of evidence to challenge his conviction. The Supreme Court held that post-conviction disclosure duties are narrower than pre-trial duties, limited to material casting doubt on conviction safety.

A mentally ill Nigerian woman challenged the lawfulness of her immigration detention pending deportation. The Supreme Court held that, although the Home Secretary unlawfully failed to apply detention policy properly, a lawful application would not have secured earlier release, warranting only nominal damages.

Truck manufacturers challenged collective proceedings brought by purchasers claiming compensation for price-fixing. The Supreme Court held that litigation funding agreements where funders receive a percentage of damages recovered are damages-based agreements under section 58AA CLSA 1990, rendering them unenforceable without compliance with statutory requirements.

The Supreme Court considered whether the Secretary of State lawfully issued guidance prohibiting local government pension scheme administrators from pursuing investment policies contrary to UK foreign or defence policy. The majority held the guidance was unlawful as it exceeded statutory powers, which permitted guidance on how to approach investment decisions, not what investments to avoid.

Mr Pathan, an Indian national working in the UK on a Tier 2 visa, applied for further leave to remain. Unknown to him, his sponsor's licence was revoked three months before his application was refused. The Supreme Court held the Secretary of State's failure to promptly notify him was procedurally unfair.

The Supreme Court considered whether the Parole Board could take into account unproven allegations when assessing a prisoner's risk to the public. The Court held that the Board is not limited to considering only facts proven on the balance of probabilities but may assess the possibility that allegations are true, provided procedural fairness is observed.

Privacy International challenged the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's ruling on thematic warrants for computer hacking by GCHQ. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that section 67(8) of RIPA 2000 did not oust the High Court's judicial review jurisdiction over IPT decisions for errors of law.

Mr Quaye, who murdered when aged 17 but was sentenced at 18, challenged section 27A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which restricts minimum term reviews for detention during His Majesty's pleasure to those under 18 when sentenced. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed his appeal, holding the provisions compatible with articles 5, 7 and 14 ECHR.

Mrs Roberts, a support worker of African-Caribbean heritage, was stopped and searched without suspicion on a London bus under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Supreme Court held the suspicionless stop and search power was compatible with article 8 ECHR.

A quarry extension in the Green Belt was granted planning permission. The issue was whether 'openness' in Green Belt policy required visual impact assessment. The Supreme Court held visual impact is not a mandatory consideration under the openness proviso; it is a matter of planning judgement, not law.

Lindsay Sandiford, a British national sentenced to death in Indonesia for drug offences, challenged the UK government's blanket policy refusing to fund legal representation for British nationals facing capital charges abroad. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal but urged reconsideration of her case.

Appellants challenged the 'two-child limit' on child tax credit as incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation pursued legitimate aims of reducing public expenditure and ensuring fairness, and was proportionate despite its greater impact on women and larger families.

Lone mothers challenged the benefit cap introduced under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, arguing it indirectly discriminated against women and victims of domestic violence, contrary to Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by majority, holding the cap was justified.

A different-sex couple with a conscientious objection to marriage challenged the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which restricts civil partnerships to same-sex couples. Following the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the Supreme Court granted a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Frank Stott, sentenced to an extended determinate sentence (EDS) for serious sexual offences including child rape, challenged the early release provisions requiring him to serve two-thirds of his custodial term before parole eligibility, arguing this discriminated against him under Article 14 ECHR. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal by majority.

T received police warnings aged 11 for stealing bicycles; JB received a caution for stealing false fingernails. Both had these disclosed on enhanced criminal record certificates years later, jeopardising employment. The Supreme Court held the disclosure regime under the Police Act 1997 violated Article 8 ECHR.

The Supreme Court held that the Lord Chancellor's proposed statutory instrument introducing a residence test for civil legal aid was ultra vires the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The draft order exceeded the delegated powers in section 9(2)(b).

Beaurish Tigere, a Zambian national resident in the UK since age six with discretionary leave to remain, was denied a student loan because she was not 'settled' under the eligibility rules. The Supreme Court held by majority that the settlement criterion unjustifiably breached her right to education under Article 14 read with Article 2 of Protocol 1.