Case summaries

SAE Education Ltd, a commercial education provider closely linked with Middlesex University, claimed VAT exemption as a 'college of a university'. The Supreme Court allowed its appeal, holding that integration of educational activities, not formal constitutional status, is the correct test.

Retailers sued Visa and Mastercard, claiming multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) charged on card transactions restricted competition unlawfully. The Supreme Court held the MIFs breached Article 101(1) TFEU, were not exempt under Article 101(3), and clarified the approach to pass-on damages.

A landlord challenged section 72 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003, which let general partners of dissolved limited partnership tenancies become tenants in their own right. The Supreme Court held section 72(10) incompatible with A1P1 and outside Holyrood's competence, suspending that finding for 12 months.

Ms Samuels, a single mother of four reliant on benefits, was evicted for rent arrears and found intentionally homeless by Birmingham City Council on the basis her accommodation was affordable. The Supreme Court allowed her appeal, holding the council misapplied the affordability assessment under the 1996 Order.

An Iranian national who entered the UK lawfully as a child at age nine committed serious knifepoint robberies as a juvenile. The Supreme Court upheld his deportation, confirming that the 'very serious reasons' test from Maslov is not a separate threshold but a summary of how conventional balancing criteria apply to settled migrants who arrived as children.

A dispute arose over service charges under a commercial lease. The tenant refused to pay certified charges, claiming they were excessive. The Supreme Court held that the landlord's certificate was conclusive as to the sum payable, but the tenant could later dispute underlying liability. This established a 'pay now, argue later' interpretation of conclusive certification clauses.

Mr Costa, a company director, covertly pursued his own sale strategy for the company, concealing it from and misleading the board, contrary to the agreed Exit strategy. The Supreme Court held this breached section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, requiring good faith in conduct, not just belief.

Jessica Schrader's 2006 will left her house solely to son Nick, disinheriting Bill from its value. Bill challenged the will. Mann J upheld capacity and knowledge/approval but found undue influence, pronouncing against the 2006 will in favour of the 1990 will.

Werit supplied replacement plastic bottles fitted by a reconditioner into used Schütz metal cages, the patented invention lying in the cage welds. The Supreme Court allowed Werit's appeal, holding that replacing the bottle was repair, not "making" the patented product under s 60(1)(a) Patents Act 1977.

The Scotch Whisky Association challenged Scotland's minimum alcohol pricing legislation as contrary to EU law on free movement of goods. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding minimum pricing was a proportionate measure to protect public health, particularly targeting harmful drinking among deprived communities.

Homeowners in financial difficulty sold their homes to purchasers under sale and rent back schemes, relying on promises they could remain as tenants. The purchasers financed the acquisitions through mortgages that prohibited such tenancies and later defaulted. The Supreme Court held the vendors' rights were merely personal, not proprietary, and could not override the lenders' charges.

Sea Shepherd UK was sued as joint tortfeasor after its US parent's vessel allegedly attacked a Maltese fish farm's tuna cage during Operation Bluerage. The Supreme Court, by majority, held SSUK's contribution (a small mailshot raising £1,730 and recruiting two volunteers) was de minimis and insufficient for accessory liability.

A union representative was suspended for participating in lawful strike action. The Supreme Court held that section 146 TULRCA, which provides no protection against detriments short of dismissal for lawful strike participation, is incompatible with Article 11 ECHR. A declaration of incompatibility was made.

The Secretary of State for Health claimed Servier caused loss by deceiving the EPO and courts to obtain a patent, delaying generic drug market entry and increasing NHS costs. The Supreme Court held that the unlawful means tort requires the defendant's conduct to affect a third party's freedom to deal with the claimant, confirming OBG v Allan's 'dealing requirement'.

Servier sought to rely on findings from a General Court judgment annulling a Commission decision on market definition as binding in UK national damages proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the EU principle of absolute res judicata did not apply outside the annulment context.

Two Somali asylum seekers claimed persecution risk in Somalia, but the Home Secretary relied on Sprakab linguistic reports linking their speech to Kenya. The Supreme Court dismissed the Home Secretary's appeals, criticising over-reliance on Sprakab's 'knowledge of country' assessments and the Upper Tribunal's prescriptive guidance in RB.

MM, a restricted patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 for arson, sought conditional discharge subject to community conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty, to which he consented. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that neither the First-tier Tribunal nor the Secretary of State has power to impose such conditions.

Government departments unilaterally withdrew check-off arrangements allowing trade union subscriptions to be deducted from employees' salaries. The Union claimed third party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce this contractual term. The Supreme Court held the Union could enforce the check-off term as the statutory presumption of third party enforceability had not been rebutted.

An Italian national living in the UK since 1985 killed his flatmate in 2001 and was imprisoned. The Secretary of State sought to deport him. The Supreme Court referred questions to the CJEU regarding whether enhanced protection from expulsion under Directive 2004/38 requires permanent residence.