An Italian national resident in the UK since 1985, imprisoned for manslaughter in 2001, faced deportation in 2007. The Supreme Court held he had not acquired permanent residence, so could not claim enhanced protection against expulsion under the Citizens' Directive.
The Secretary of State appealed against a Court of Appeal ruling that found procedural unfairness in the deprivation of Mr Kolicaj's British citizenship without offering him an opportunity to make representations. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory appeal process under section 40A satisfies fairness requirements.
SC, a Jamaican national, faced deportation as a foreign criminal. He argued deportation would breach his Article 3 ECHR rights due to risk of persecution in Jamaica linked to his mother's sexuality. The Supreme Court held that a person's criminality cannot make otherwise unreasonable internal relocation reasonable, and reinstated the First-tier Tribunal's decision allowing his appeal.
Directors' disqualification proceedings against two individuals who controlled three insolvent companies. They diverted company funds to other businesses in which one had interests, causing substantial creditor losses. Both were found unfit as directors for failing to respect corporate personality principles and were disqualified for seven and eleven years respectively.
The Secretary of State sought disqualification orders against directors and alleged de facto directors of Amba companies and Nextime. The court analysed what constitutes a de facto director, finding that Jayson Hollier was not a de facto director despite assisting his father's business, but that Adrian Hollier and Mrs Hollier were de facto directors whose conduct rendered them unfit.
Four landowners whose sites were compulsorily acquired for HS2 applied for certificates of appropriate alternative development (CAADs). The Supreme Court considered whether CAAD applications or decisions relating to other land could be taken into account when determining a CAAD. The Court held such materials may provide relevant evidence but are not equivalent to planning applications.
A Latvian national in the UK claimed state pension credit, relying on permanent residence rights under the Citizens Directive. The Supreme Court dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal, holding the 2009 extension of the Worker Registration Scheme was disproportionate and unlawful under EU law.
The Supreme Court considered the meaning of 'social support' in descriptor 9c of the PIP daily living activity 'engaging with other people face to face'. It held that social support may include prompting, need not be contemporaneous with the engagement, and must come from someone trained or experienced.
Mrs Tolley, a British national receiving Disability Living Allowance, moved permanently to Spain. The Secretary of State withdrew her benefit on residence grounds. The Supreme Court considered whether EU Regulation 1408/71 required portability of DLA, ultimately referring questions to the CJEU.
The plaintiff’s garden was flooded after a culvert, unlawfully laid in the defendants’ ditch without a protective grid, became blocked during heavy rain. The House of Lords held that an occupier who knows of and continues a trespasser-created hazard is liable in private nuisance.
A senior social worker was seriously injured when a mentally ill father, known to NHS mental health teams, attacked her after making specific threats. The Court of Appeal held it was arguable that collaborating NHS trusts owed her a common law and Article 2 duty, and reinstated her claims.
A landlord refused consent for a tenant's planning application to change part-use to residential, fearing increased risk of leasehold enfranchisement. The Supreme Court, by majority, held the refusal was reasonable, as protecting the reversion is a legitimate landlord concern.
Mr Serafin sued a Polish-language newspaper for libel over an article alleging dishonesty and misconduct. The Supreme Court held the trial judge's hostile conduct rendered the trial unfair, ordered a full retrial, and clarified the public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
The SFO applied to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment against Barclays following dismissal of charges relating to capital raisings in 2008. The court refused, holding that senior executives were not the 'directing mind and will' of the company for completing the transactions, as ultimate authority remained with the Board and committees.
Marex obtained judgment against two companies controlled by Mr Sevilleja, who then stripped their assets to prevent payment. Marex sued Mr Sevilleja personally for economic torts. The Supreme Court clarified that the reflective loss principle only prevents shareholders claiming for diminution in share value reflecting company losses, and does not bar creditors from pursuing their own claims.
A nephew sued his uncle's executors for unpaid annuity instalments promised by the uncle upon hearing of the nephew's intended marriage. The court held that marriage, induced by the uncle's promise, constituted valid consideration despite the nephew being already engaged, as it involved detriment to the nephew and benefit to the uncle.
Shagang sued HNA under a charterparty guarantee. HNA alleged the contract was procured by bribery, relying on confessions made to Chinese police. Shagang claimed the confessions were obtained by torture. The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's finding of no bribery.
A prisoner convicted of a racially-aggravated murder was held in solitary confinement for 56 months for his own protection. The Supreme Court held his segregation breached prison rules and violated article 8 ECHR, though not article 3.
Professor Shanks invented a glucose biosensor while employed by a Unilever research subsidiary. Unilever earned around £24m from licensing the patents. The Supreme Court held the patents were of outstanding benefit and awarded him a fair share of £2m.
Camden offered a homeless applicant and her father and sister two small self-contained flats a few yards apart on the same hostel floor. The Supreme Court held (Lord Kerr dissenting) that section 176 of the Housing Act 1996 does not require a single unit of accommodation, and allowed Camden's appeal.
Mrs Sharland agreed a divorce settlement based on her husband's dishonest evidence about the value and imminent IPO of his company. The Supreme Court held that fraud unravels matrimonial consent orders, allowing her to reopen the financial proceedings.
A director of a dental company acquired dental practices for herself rather than for the company. The Court of Appeal held she was not in breach of fiduciary duty because shareholders had acquiesced at a family meeting with full knowledge of the material facts. Silence in the circumstances amounted to consent.
Viterra sold pulses C&FFO Mundra to Sharp, who failed to pay. After the goods were discharged, warehoused, and customs cleared, Sharp defaulted. The dispute concerned whether damages under the GAFTA Default Clause should be assessed by reference to a notional C&FFO value or the actual ex warehouse value of the goods where they lay.
Mr Adam, suffering from severe multiple sclerosis, executed a 2001 will disinheriting his daughters in favour of long-serving employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that he lacked testamentary capacity, as disease had poisoned his natural affections despite preserved cognitive understanding.
Shaw published 'Ladies Directory' containing advertisements for prostitutes with photographs and details of services offered. He was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, living on earnings of prostitution, and publishing an obscene publication. The House of Lords upheld the conviction, affirming that conspiracy to corrupt public morals is an indictable common law offence.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive