A Co‑operative milk roundsman, contrary to express instructions, employed a 13‑year‑old boy to help deliver milk. The boy was injured through the roundsman’s negligent driving. The Court of Appeal (by majority) held the employer vicariously liable, as the boy’s work furthered the employer’s business.
Mrs Coulter, domiciled in Jersey, left her UK estate to a Jersey-law charitable trust. HMRC refused inheritance tax relief under section 23 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that refusal breached EU free movement of capital.
A motor bicycle was sold through a chain of buyers, with each seller stating it was a 1941-1942 model based on the registration book, which was false. The Court of Appeal held that such statements were mere representations, not warranties, and the final seller was not liable in damages.
A testator's will leaving everything to his homosexual partner could not be found after his death. The court held the presumption of revocation by destruction was rebutted, finding it more probable the will was accidentally lost, and admitted a copy to probate.
Mrs Rowlands was unlawfully arrested, handcuffed and prosecuted after complaining about noisy neighbours. A jury found the police conduct wrongful and dishonest. The Court of Appeal held she was entitled to aggravated and exemplary damages, clarified guidance in Thompson, and confirmed exemplary damages can be awarded vicariously against a chief constable.
Royal Bank of Canada received payments linked to North Sea oil extraction under an assignment from Sulpetro. HMRC sought to tax these payments under the UK/Canada Double Taxation Convention as income from immovable property. The Supreme Court held the payments did not constitute 'consideration for the right to work' natural resources within Article 6(2), dismissing HMRC's appeal.
Eight appeals concerning wives who charged their homes as security for husbands' debts and later claimed undue influence. The House of Lords clarified when banks are 'put on inquiry' and what steps they must take to avoid constructive notice of undue influence, establishing comprehensive guidance on solicitors' duties and disclosure obligations in suretyship transactions.
The Royal College of Nursing sought clarification on whether nurses could lawfully participate in pregnancy terminations using prostaglandin induction under the Abortion Act 1967. The House of Lords (3-2) held that such terminations were lawful when carried out under a doctor's control, even if nurses performed abortifacient acts, as the Act contemplated treatment as a team effort.
A property sale contract was purportedly made with a company that had not yet been incorporated. The claimant sought to hold the defendants personally liable under Section 36C of the Companies Act 1985. The defendants argued the contract contained an 'agreement to the contrary' excluding the statutory effect. The court dismissed the summary judgment application, holding no contrary agreement existed.
Mr Efobi, a Nigerian-born postman employed by Royal Mail, alleged direct racial discrimination after over 30 unsuccessful internal job applications. The Supreme Court considered whether section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 changed the burden of proof in discrimination cases. The Court held the statutory change was clarificatory, not substantive.
Ms Jhuti, a Royal Mail employee on trial, made protected disclosures about her colleagues' improper conduct. Her line manager fabricated performance concerns leading an unwitting decision-maker to dismiss her. The Supreme Court held the hidden true reason, not the decision-maker's invented reason, constituted the reason for dismissal.
Care workers performing sleep-in shifts claimed entitlement to National Minimum Wage for all hours present at work, not just when awake. The Supreme Court held that under the NMW Regulations, sleep-in workers are only entitled to NMW for hours when actually awake for the purpose of working, not for permitted sleeping time.
A motor dealer misrepresented the deposit amount to a finance company to secure a hire-purchase agreement. The customer later dishonestly sold the car and defaulted. The Court of Appeal held that damages under s.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 are assessed as for fraudulent misrepresentation, allowing recovery of all direct losses even if unforeseeable.
RR's housing benefit was reduced under the 'bedroom tax' despite his disabled partner needing a separate bedroom. The Supreme Court held that public authorities and tribunals must disapply subordinate legislation where applying it would breach Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
MUR Shipping invoked a force majeure clause when US sanctions prevented timely payment in US dollars under a charterparty. RTI offered payment in euros instead. The Supreme Court held that reasonable endeavours provisions do not require acceptance of non-contractual performance, restoring certainty in commercial contracts.
A recovering problem gambler sued Sky Betting and Gaming, alleging its cookies, data processing and direct marketing were unlawful because he had not validly consented. The Court of Appeal held that consent under data protection law is objective, not subjective, and allowed the operator's appeal.
RTS agreed to supply automated equipment to Müller under a Letter of Intent while negotiating detailed contract terms. Work proceeded without a formal contract being signed. The Supreme Court held that by their conduct, particularly a variation agreement on 25 August 2005, the parties waived the 'subject to contract' requirement and were bound by the negotiated MF/1 terms.
The appellants, former fiduciaries of the respondents, exploited a business opportunity obtained through their fiduciary positions to provide recovery services after resigning. The Supreme Court upheld the requirement to account for all profits made, rejecting arguments that a 'but for' causation test should apply to reduce accountability. The case affirms the strict profit rule for fiduciaries.
Rush & Tompkins, a main contractor, settled with GLC but faced a subcontractor's claim. The subcontractor sought discovery of 'without prejudice' settlement correspondence. The House of Lords held that without prejudice communications are protected from discovery by third parties in connected litigation to encourage settlement negotiations.
A contractor built a swimming pool 9 inches shallower than contracted. The pool remained safe and functional, with no diminution in value. The House of Lords held that the cost of rebuilding (£21,560) was unreasonable and disproportionate, awarding instead £2,500 for loss of amenity.
Mr Rwamba, twice disqualified as a company director (the second time for breaching conditions of earlier leave to act), appealed refusal of leave under s.17 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to act as director of two companies. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the judge wrongly gave extra weight to deterrence merely because disqualification arose from breach of earlier permission.
Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir which burst and flooded Fletcher's neighbouring mine. Despite Rylands having no knowledge of old mine shafts that caused the flooding, he was held strictly liable. This landmark case established that one who brings something dangerous onto their land is liable if it escapes and causes damage.
A landlord opposed a business tenant's renewal under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, proposing substantial but objectively useless works whose sole purpose was to evict the tenant. The Supreme Court held such conditional intention does not satisfy ground (f).
Charles Saatchi sought permission to continue a derivative claim on behalf of Triptych Logistics Limited against its sole director, Rahul Gajjar, alleging misappropriation of company assets including unauthorised loans, payroll payments, vehicle purchases, and credit card misuse. The court granted permission, finding sufficient merit in the claims.
A Lithuanian EEA national and her Pakistani partner were detained on their wedding day on suspicion of entering a marriage of convenience. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lay on the Secretary of State, not the appellants, and remitted the case.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive