TN, a Vietnamese asylum seeker, challenged the First-tier Tribunal's rejection of her asylum claim under the Fast Track Rules 2005, arguing the rules' systemic unfairness automatically nullified decisions made under them. The Supreme Court held that systemic unfairness in procedural rules does not automatically invalidate individual decisions; claimants must demonstrate actual unfairness in their specific case.
Dorset County Council rejected five applications to record byways on its definitive map because the accompanying maps were computer-enlarged from 1:50,000 OS originals. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that maps presented at 1:25,000 satisfied the statutory requirement, preserving the vehicular rights of way.
VIP Communications challenged a direction by the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Communications Act 2003, which instructed Ofcom not to exempt commercial multi-user GSM gateways from licensing requirements. The Supreme Court held the Secretary of State had power to give such directions on national security grounds, reversing the Court of Appeal.
Ms Wang applied for Tier 1 (Investor) Migrant status using a scheme where she paid £200,000 to access a £1m loan pre-destined for investment in a specific company. The Supreme Court held she lacked the requisite 'control' over the loan money as she had no real choice about its use or investment destination.
Wang Yam, convicted of murder following a partially in camera trial, applied to the European Court of Human Rights and sought to disclose in camera material in his response. The Supreme Court held English courts retained a discretionary power to refuse such disclosure.
Whiston was released early on home detention curfew before reaching the automatic release point of his 18-month robbery sentence. His licence was revoked and he was recalled without judicial review. The Supreme Court held that article 5(4) ECHR was not engaged during a determinate sentence.
Worcestershire County Council disputed responsibility for after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for an individual detained twice. The Supreme Court held that the duty to provide after-care services ends upon subsequent detention, with responsibility transferring to the local authority where the person was ordinarily resident before the latest detention.
The Supreme Court held that a developer's promise of a community benefit fund donation, tied to a proposed wind turbine, was not a material planning consideration. Planning permission cannot be bought through benefits unrelated to land use, reaffirming the Newbury criteria.
A single mother with four children, including two autistic sons, challenged a Jewish housing association's policy of allocating social housing primarily to Orthodox Jews. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed her appeal, finding the policy was proportionate positive action lawful under the Equality Act 2010.
Two foreign nationals who overstayed their visas and formed relationships with British citizens were refused leave to remain. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeals, upholding the 'insurmountable obstacles' and 'exceptional circumstances' tests in the Immigration Rules as compatible with Article 8 ECHR.
A Jamaican homosexual challenged the designation of Jamaica as a safe state under section 94(4) of the 2002 Act. The Supreme Court held that a state with systematic persecution of LGBT people, a substantial identifiable section of the community, could not be designated as having 'in general' no serious risk of persecution.
The Supreme Court considered whether police retention of personal data on databases—records of Mr Catt's attendance at political protests and a harassment warning letter concerning Ms T—violated article 8 ECHR. The Court allowed both appeals, finding retention proportionate and lawful.
Two foreign criminals facing deportation challenged Home Secretary certificates under section 94B of the 2002 Act requiring them to bring their human rights appeals from abroad. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed their appeals and quashed the certificates, holding that out-of-country appeals would not be effective and breached article 8.
Three migrants made in-time applications to extend leave to remain but each was procedurally defective - two for non-payment of correct fees, one for failure to provide biometrics. The Supreme Court held section 3C did not extend leave where applications were invalidly made.
The Supreme Court considered challenges to the Minimum Income Requirement in the Immigration Rules, requiring UK sponsors to earn at least £18,600 to bring non-EEA partners into the UK. The Court upheld the MIR in principle but found the rules and guidance unlawful regarding children's welfare and alternative funding sources.
Two homeless applicants, housed temporarily by local authorities under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996, challenged their eviction without court orders. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that such interim accommodation falls outside the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and that eviction without a court order does not breach Article 8 ECHR.
Three prisoners challenged the Parole Board's refusal to grant oral hearings when reviewing their release. The Supreme Court unanimously held that fairness, both at common law and under Article 5(4) ECHR, required oral hearings in each case, providing comprehensive guidance on when such hearings are necessary.
Two young couples were denied marriage visas under Rule 277, which raised the minimum age for sponsor and applicant to 21 to deter forced marriages. The Supreme Court held that the rule disproportionately interfered with Article 8 rights and dismissed the Home Secretary's appeals.
Reprotech bought a waste treatment site and claimed a council committee resolution varying a planning condition amounted to a binding determination that generating electricity needed no fresh planning permission. The House of Lords disagreed, allowing the council's appeal and rejecting estoppel arguments in planning law.
Ms Perry was convicted of collecting information likely to be useful to terrorists. She appealed arguing the trial judge misconstrued her defence statement. The Supreme Court held that interpreting the defence statement was a question of fact, not law, and dismissed her appeal against concurrent findings.
Local authorities in Merseyside and South Yorkshire challenged the Secretary of State's allocation of EU Structural Funds for 2014-2020, arguing they received disproportionately less than comparable UK transition regions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by majority, holding the allocation was within the Secretary of State's wide discretion.
Two asylum-seeking mothers challenged prolonged hotel accommodation under s.95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The High Court held hotel rooms were not 'dwellings' under Part X Housing Act 1985, but found the Home Secretary breached her duty to provide 'adequate' accommodation during specified periods.
Two claimants challenged the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's September 2024 policy on live facial recognition technology, alleging it breached Articles 8, 10 and 11 ECHR by granting officers excessive discretion. The Divisional Court dismissed the claim, holding the policy was sufficiently foreseeable and non-arbitrary.
Two failed asylum seekers, an Ahmadi from Pakistan and a Catholic from Vietnam, resisted removal under Article 9 ECHR, claiming religious persecution. The House of Lords dismissed their appeals on facts but held that Convention articles beyond Article 3 could engage in foreign removal cases where a flagrant denial of rights was shown.
UNISON challenged the lawfulness of fees imposed for Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal claims under the Fees Order 2013. The Supreme Court unanimously held the Fees Order unlawful, finding it unjustifiably restricted access to justice under common law and EU law.
