Mr Belhaj and his wife alleged MI6 complicity in their rendition and torture. After the DPP declined to prosecute Sir Mark Allen, they sought judicial review. The Supreme Court held that such proceedings were 'in a criminal cause or matter', excluding closed material procedure under the Justice and Security Act 2013.
Two cases concerned UK officials' alleged complicity in unlawful detention, rendition and torture by foreign states. Belhaj and Boudchar were rendered to Libya; Rahmatullah was detained by US forces for ten years. The Supreme Court unanimously held that neither state immunity nor the foreign act of state doctrine barred the claims, allowing them to proceed to trial.
This case concerned complex credit swap transactions involving Lehman Brothers entities and Australian investors. The Supreme Court examined whether contractual provisions altering security priorities upon insolvency violated the anti-deprivation rule. The Court upheld the validity of commercially sensible 'flip' clauses, establishing that bona fide commercial transactions entered in good faith do not infringe the anti-deprivation principle.
Two Moroccan domestic workers employed at the Libyan and Sudanese embassies in London brought employment claims but were barred by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. The Supreme Court held the relevant provisions incompatible with Article 6 ECHR and disapplied them for EU law claims.
An Algerian schizophrenic facing deportation from the UK claimed removal would breach his Convention rights due to risk of relapse without adequate treatment in Algeria. The Court found no violation of Articles 3, 8 or 13, holding the risks were speculative and the high threshold for Article 3 was not met.
A heat exchanger exploded at Beoco's factory due to the plaintiff's own negligence in failing to properly test repairs before resuming operations. Though the first defendant breached warranty in supplying defective equipment, the plaintiff could not recover hypothetical lost profits for repairs never carried out due to the supervening explosion caused by their own recklessness.
Mr Berezovsky claimed he was intimidated by Mr Abramovich into selling his interests in Russian oil company Sibneft at an undervalue through threats linked to the Putin regime. He also claimed Mr Abramovich breached fiduciary duties regarding aluminium company Rusal. The Court of Appeal largely upheld permission to amend pleadings and rejected strike-out applications.
Actor Steven Berkoff sued journalist Julie Burchill and Times Newspapers for defamation after articles described him as 'hideously ugly' and compared his appearance unfavourably to Frankenstein's monster. The Court of Appeal held by majority that such statements were capable of being defamatory as they could expose him to ridicule and lower his standing.
Mr Bernard challenged psychiatric experts' statements at his assize court trial for armed robbery, claiming they violated his presumption of innocence by expressing opinions on his guilt. The European Court of Human Rights found no violation, holding the statements formed only part of evidence and the trial as a whole was fair.
A new car suffered catastrophic engine failure after three weeks because of a latent manufacturing defect. The court held that the buyer had kept it beyond a reasonable time and therefore lost the right to reject, limiting him to damages; the strict approach was later statutorily reformed.
A Moroccan father, divorced from his Dutch wife, was refused renewal of his residence permit and deported from the Netherlands, despite having regular contact with his young daughter born of the marriage. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8, establishing that family life exists between parent and child from birth regardless of cohabitation.
Mr Bertino was convicted in Italy in his absence for a sexual offence. Italy sought his extradition via a European arrest warrant. The UK Supreme Court held that he had not 'deliberately absented himself from his trial' under section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, as he was unaware of the prosecution and trial date, and had not unequivocally waived his right to be present.
Peter Beswick sold his coal merchant business to his nephew in exchange for weekly payments to himself during his lifetime and an annuity of £5 per week to his widow after his death. The nephew refused to pay the widow. The House of Lords held that the widow, as administratrix of her husband's estate, could obtain specific performance to enforce the annuity payments.
Directors of a family company purchased property adjacent to company premises for their personal benefit without disclosing the opportunity to their co-directors. The Court of Appeal held they breached their fiduciary duty as there was a real sensible possibility of conflict between their personal interests and their duty to the company.
A 67-year-old widow sought permission to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, 25 years and 9 months out of time. Despite the extraordinary delay, the court granted permission, finding compelling grounds including her vulnerability, the stepchildren's obstruction, and that the estate remained undistributed.
Two Kosovar Albanians were shot by British soldiers during UN peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. The soldiers claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased aimed a weapon at them. The court rejected this defence, finding no reasonable grounds for such belief, and held the Ministry of Defence vicariously liable in negligence and trespass.
Bilta's liquidators sued its former directors and their co-conspirators for losses caused by a VAT carousel fraud. The directors had breached their fiduciary duties by causing Bilta to participate in fraudulent transactions. The Supreme Court held that the illegality defence was not available to the defendants because attributing the directors' wrongdoing to the company would undermine their statutory duties to creditors.
Companies involved in MTIC VAT fraud brought claims against Tradition, a broker, under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance. The Supreme Court held that section 213 extends beyond company insiders to third parties who knowingly participate in fraudulent business activities, and addressed limitation issues for dissolved companies.
A divorced wife sought to postpone the sale of the matrimonial home, contrary to her undertaking to sell by 2012 if her husband was not released from mortgage covenants. The Supreme Court held the court had jurisdiction to release her from the undertaking and remitted the matter for determination on the merits.
A dental house officer suffered a migraine attack during a career advice meeting. She claimed the interviewer abandoned her on the stairs without calling help. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal against summary judgment, holding that whether a duty of care existed required factual determination applying Caparo principles.
The Claimant alleged the Defendant, who managed their business operations, breached duties as a de facto director by extending unauthorised credit to G-Force, which subsequently went into administration causing a £481,727 loss. The Court found the Defendant was not a de facto director, had no binding instruction prohibiting credit extension, and was not negligent. Claim dismissed.
Bisset sold land to Wilkinson for sheep farming, stating his opinion that the land could carry 2,000 sheep. The buyers sought rescission for misrepresentation when farming proved unsuccessful. The Privy Council held that the statement was honestly held opinion, not misrepresentation of fact, since neither party knew the land's actual sheep-carrying capacity.
Black Clawson held dishonoured bills of exchange accepted by a German company. After the German court dismissed their claim as time-barred under German limitation law, they sought to sue in England. The House of Lords allowed the appeal, holding that section 8 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 did not abrogate the rule in Harris v Quine, and the German judgment was only conclusive as to what it actually decided.
The Club submitted a tender for an airport concession before the deadline, but due to the Council's failure to empty the letterbox, it was wrongly recorded as late and excluded from consideration. The Court of Appeal held that the Council's invitation to tender created an implied contractual obligation to consider all conforming tenders received by the deadline.
Bloomberg published an article containing information from a confidential Letter of Request regarding a criminal investigation into ZXC by a UK law enforcement body. ZXC claimed misuse of private information. The Supreme Court upheld that persons under criminal investigation have, prior to charge, a reasonable expectation of privacy in information relating to that investigation.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive