Mrs Savage threw beer over Miss Beal in a pub; the glass broke and cut Miss Beal's wrist. The House of Lords held that for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47, the prosecution need only prove an assault and that actual bodily harm resulted, without requiring foresight of harm. For section 20 offences, foresight of some physical harm is required.
Spanish-owned fishing companies challenged UK legislation requiring British nationality for vessel registration. The European Court of Justice ruled that national courts must set aside domestic rules preventing interim relief to protect Community law rights, establishing the supremacy of EC law over conflicting national provisions.
Ambreen Sheikh suffered catastrophic brain injury from glimepiride poisoning after earlier caustic burns inflicted by her in-laws. The Supreme Court restored their convictions under section 5 DVCVA 2004, holding that section 5(1)(d)(iii) focuses on foreseeable circumstances, not the precise unlawful act.
Nurses at Rampton Hospital were convicted of ill-treating patients based solely on uncorroborated evidence from mentally disordered patients with criminal backgrounds. The case addressed whether judges must give the standard 'dangerous to convict' warning for such witnesses outside established categories, and whether jury irregularities rendered verdicts unsafe.
Stephenson, a schizophrenic vagrant, lit a fire inside a straw stack to keep warm, causing extensive damage. The Court of Appeal held that “recklessness” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 requires a subjective awareness of risk. Because the jury were misdirected, his arson conviction was quashed.
Agnes Reeves Taylor, ex-wife of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, was charged with torture under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for acts allegedly committed in 1990 as a member of the NPFL rebel group. The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of 'person acting in an official capacity'.
Taylor took a truck without consent and was involved in a fatal collision, though his driving was faultless. Charged with aggravated vehicle taking, the issue was whether injury need involve driving fault. The Supreme Court held that fault in the driving causing the injury is required.
Berlinah Wallace threw sulphuric acid over her former partner, causing catastrophic, permanent injuries. He later underwent lawful euthanasia in Belgium. The trial judge withdrew the murder charge, holding causation was broken. The Court of Appeal held the jury could find her acts significantly caused his death and ordered a retrial.
Mr Woollin threw his three‑month‑old son onto a hard surface, causing his death. The trial judge directed the jury using a “substantial risk” test. The House of Lords held this mis-stated the intent required for murder, affirmed the Nedrick “virtual certainty” direction, and substituted manslaughter.
A contract for Surat cotton 'to arrive ex Peerless from Bombay' was held void where two ships named 'Peerless' existed, one sailing in October, another in December. The parties intended different ships, so there was no consensus ad idem and no binding contract.
Foreign nationals detained by British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan sued the UK Government in tort under local law. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of Crown act of state barred such claims where detention was carried out as inherently governmental acts pursuant to UK foreign policy during military operations.
Tenants in an unlicensed HMO sought a Rent Repayment Order against the superior landlord rather than their immediate landlord. The Supreme Court held that RROs under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can only be made against the immediate landlord under the tenancy generating the relevant rent, not superior landlords.
Following divorce, the wife undertook to share any inheritance over £100,000 from her mother with her ex-husband. When her mother's will left her exactly £100,000, the husband sought to challenge the will's validity. The Court of Appeal held he had sufficient interest to bring a probate claim.
Mr Ratcliffe suffered severe permanent neurological injury following a spinal anaesthetic given during ankle surgery. He alleged negligent misplacement of the needle, relying on res ipsa loquitur. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding of careful practice, rejecting liability and clarifying res ipsa in medical negligence.
Conjoined twins Jodie and Mary could be surgically separated only by causing Mary’s inevitable death, but non-separation meant both would soon die. Their devout Catholic parents refused consent. The Court of Appeal held the operation was in Jodie’s best interests and, applying necessity, could lawfully proceed.
The Supreme Court, by a 4–1 majority with Lady Hale dissenting, upheld a care order with a plan for adoption of a three-year-old girl. The parents’ serious dishonesty and hostility made essential cooperation with professionals impossible. The court clarified that appellate review asks simply whether the decision was ‘wrong’.
A same-sex partner sought orders relating to a child taken to Pakistan by the biological mother. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that the child retained habitual residence in England, reshaping the test for losing habitual residence under European law.
The House of Lords addressed the standard of proof in care proceedings under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. It reaffirmed that facts must be proved on the simple balance of probabilities, rejecting any 'heightened' civil standard, and that unproven allegations cannot ground findings of likely future harm.
The Privy Council determined whether a charge over uncollected book debts, where the company could freely collect debts and use proceeds in ordinary business, constituted a fixed or floating charge. The Board held it was a floating charge, overruling In re New Bullas Trading Ltd, establishing that company control over charged assets is determinative.
Dr Knight, a minority shareholder in family companies, sought access to share registers to contact fellow shareholders about historic allegations of director misconduct. The Court of Appeal upheld the Registrar's no-access order, finding his purpose improper as the stale allegations could not benefit shareholders. This case clarified the 'proper purpose' test under s.117 Companies Act 2006.
A mother took her two children from Australia to England for what was agreed to be a temporary stay. She later decided not to return. The Supreme Court considered whether habitual residence had shifted to England and whether 'repudiatory retention' exists, ultimately dismissing the father's Hague Convention application.
The Gross family petitioned under section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 alleging unfairly prejudicial conduct by the Rackind family. The key issue was whether conduct of a subsidiary's affairs could constitute conduct of the holding company's affairs. The Court of Appeal held that where directors of a holding company are also directors of its subsidiaries, conduct of the subsidiary's affairs can be conduct of the holding company's affairs.
A Romanian father sought to enforce a Romanian custody order in England under Brussels IIR. After the Court of Appeal refused enforcement, the Supreme Court held it had no jurisdiction to hear a further appeal, as the UK's notification under article 34 limited appeals to the Court of Appeal only.
Three companies in the DeepOcean group sought court sanction for a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. One creditor class voted against the plan but the court exercised its cross-class cram down power under section 901G, sanctioning the plan as creditors would be no worse off than in insolvency.
The Supreme Court allowed appeals by parents with learning difficulties against a permanence order granting authority to adopt their daughter. The Lord Ordinary had failed to apply the statutory threshold test in section 84(5)(c)(ii) of the 2007 Act, instead assessing whether the local authority's concerns were justified.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive