Tiuta sued De Villiers for negligent valuation underpinning a second loan facility which refinanced an earlier non-negligent facility plus advanced new money. The Supreme Court held the valuer's liability was limited to the new money, since the original loan would have been lost anyway.
An 18‑year‑old dived into shallow water at a country park lake, broke his neck and sued the local authorities as occupiers. The House of Lords held they owed no duty to prevent him from taking an obvious risk, stressing personal responsibility and limiting occupiers’ liability for natural features.
T.M.M.C. granted TECO a patent licence requiring royalty and 'compensation' payments for exceeding production quotas. During wartime, T.M.M.C. informally suspended compensation claims. The House of Lords held that delivery of a counterclaim in earlier litigation sufficiently terminated this equitable suspension, allowing T.M.M.C. to recover compensation after reasonable notice.
Totel Ltd challenged the VAT 'pay-first' appeal requirement as breaching the EU principle of equivalence, arguing other tax appeals lacked such a condition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Income Tax, CGT and SDLT were not true comparators with VAT.
Mrs Townsend sought permission to apply to the Court of Protection regarding withdrawal of dialysis from her incapacitated father. The Trust claimed it was a 'clinical decision' outside best interests scrutiny. The Court of Appeal rejected this distinction, holding all such decisions require best interests analysis.
Transco’s gas main ran in a council embankment. A fractured water pipe supplying council flats saturated landfill, collapsing the embankment and endangering the main. The House of Lords preserved but narrowed Rylands v Fletcher and held the council’s ordinary water supply created no strict liability.
This landmark House of Lords decision concerned the recoverability of damages for loss of profit on a follow-on charter fixture caused by late redelivery of a vessel under a time charterparty. The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the charterers were liable only for the difference between the market rate and the charter rate for the period of overrun, rather than the owners claimed loss of profit on a subsequent fixture.
Travelers insured Transform, a clinic supplying defective PIP breast implants. In group litigation, uninsured claimants sought a non-party costs order against Travelers under section 51. The Supreme Court allowed Travelers' appeal, holding it had not unjustifiably intermeddled in the uninsured claims.
Triple Point contracted with PTT to design and install commodity trading software. Triple Point failed to complete the work on time and PTT terminated the contract. The Supreme Court clarified that liquidated damages clauses apply to delay up to termination regardless of whether work is completed, and that 'negligence' in liability caps includes contractual negligence.
Trump International challenged Scottish Ministers' consent for an offshore windfarm near its golf resort, arguing only licence holders could apply under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and that a design condition was void for uncertainty. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.
A woman was raped by an elder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Supreme Court considered whether the organisation was vicariously liable. While the relationship between elder and organisation was akin to employment (stage 1 satisfied), the rape was not sufficiently connected to his authorised activities as elder (stage 2 failed). Appeal allowed.
In a 'battle of the forms' dispute, TRW purchased goods from Panasonic. The Court of Appeal held that TRW's conduct in accepting delivery of the goods constituted acceptance of Panasonic's counter-offer, thereby incorporating Panasonic's standard terms, including a German jurisdiction clause.
Tuberville grabbed his sword handle but stated he would not act because judges were in town. Savage attacked him, causing loss of an eye. The court held that conditional threats without imminent harm do not constitute assault, establishing that words can negate an apparent threat.
Mr Griffiths contracted gastroenteritis during a package holiday in Turkey. His expert witness opined the illness was caused by hotel food. The defendant did not cross-examine the expert but criticised the report in closing submissions. The Supreme Court held this was unfair and allowed the appeal, establishing that expert evidence must generally be challenged by cross-examination.
An experienced rider was injured after a horse fitted with a bitless bridle for the first time failed to respond and she fell. Her Animals Act 1971 claim failed because, although section 2(2) conditions were effectively satisfied, the Court of Appeal held she had voluntarily accepted the inherent risks of riding under section 5(2).
A concrete area in a working port was registered as a town or village green (TVG) following 20 years of recreational use by local inhabitants alongside commercial port activities. The Supreme Court held that registration did not criminalise the landowner's pre-existing commercial activities under Victorian statutes, as both uses could lawfully coexist under the 'give and take' principle.
William Tweddle married the daughter of William Guy. Both fathers agreed in writing to pay sums to William Tweddle, with the agreement stating he could sue for the amounts. When Guy's executor failed to pay, Tweddle sued. The court held that a stranger to the consideration cannot sue on a contract, even if made for his benefit.
A British citizen who travelled to ISIL-controlled Syria with her husband had her citizenship revoked on national security grounds. She appealed against both the deprivation decision and refusal of entry clearance to rejoin her children in the UK. The Supreme Court clarified SIAC's role in reviewing national security assessments, holding it applies administrative law principles rather than making independent factual determinations on risk.
Uber drivers claimed they were 'workers' entitled to minimum wage and paid leave. Uber argued drivers were self-employed contractors working for passengers. The Supreme Court unanimously held drivers were workers employed by Uber London, emphasising the need to look beyond contractual terms to the reality of the working relationship and Uber's extensive control over drivers.
Two banks devised schemes paying employee bonuses via restricted shares in offshore vehicle companies to exploit Chapter 2 ITEPA 2003 exemptions and avoid income tax. The Supreme Court, applying a purposive Ramsay construction, held the artificial restrictions should be disregarded, making the bonuses taxable.
Westminster Council hand-delivered a completion notice for business rates to a receptionist at 1 Kingsway, who emailed a scanned copy to the owner UKI. The Supreme Court held this constituted valid service, as the council caused the notice to reach the intended recipient.
A wife sought financial relief in England after an overseas divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband died before the final hearing. The Supreme Court held that the power to order financial relief after overseas divorce can only be exercised between living parties, dismissing the appeal.
A German bank sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain a Russian company from pursuing Russian court proceedings in breach of arbitration agreements governed by English law with a Paris seat. The Supreme Court upheld the injunction, confirming that a contractual choice of governing law for the contract applies to the arbitration clause, and that England was the proper forum for enforcement.
UniCredit Bank refused to pay under letters of credit issued for aircraft leases to Russian airlines, citing UK sanctions. The Supreme Court held that regulation 28(3)(c) prohibited payment until licences were obtained, as payments were 'in connection with' arrangements making aircraft available to Russia. Section 44 SAMLA provides protection for reasonable compliance beliefs.
UPMS, a member of an LLP which wholly owned Fort Gilkicker Ltd, sought permission to bring a double derivative action against a director who allegedly misappropriated a business opportunity. The court held that multiple derivative actions survived the Companies Act 2006 and granted permission to continue the claim.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive