Current cases
Please enter a keyword.
The Current Cases table below can be sorted either in ascending or descending order by clicking on the following title headings:
- Case ID
- Case name
| Case ID | Case name | Case summary | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| UKSC 2011/0264 | Assange (Appellant) v The Swedish Judicial Authority (Respondent) | On appeal from the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division (England and Wales)Issue Whether a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 EAW issued by a “judicial authority” for the purpose and within the meaning of sections 2 and 66 of the Extradition Act 2003. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0217 | KAS or H (AP) (Appellant) v The Lord Advocate and another(Respondents) (Scotland) | On appeal from the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)Issue Whether the extradition of the Appellants is incompatible with their Article 8 Convention right to respect for private and family life. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0210 | BH (AP) (Appellant) and another v The Lord Advocate and another (Respondents) (Scotland) | On appeal from the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)Issue Whether the extradition of the Appellants is incompatible with their Article 8 Convention right to respect for private and family life. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0180 | R (on the application of Halligen) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) | On appeal from the QBD Divisional Court (England and Wales)Issues What are the minimum requirements to constitute good notice of appeal for the purposes of section 108(4) of the Extradition Act 2003? If an individual is notified by fax sent after 4:30p. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0178 | Pomiechowski (Appellant) v District Court of Legunica 59-220 Poland (Respondent) | On appeal from the QBD Divisional Court (England and Wales)Issue Whether the obligation under section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 to give notice of an appeal within the permitted period includes a requirement that the would-be appellant must serve on the respondent within time a document that satisfies all of the following conditions: (i) it purports to be a notice of appeal; (ii) it identifies the appellant; (iii) it identifies the decision appealed against; and (iv) it sets out the gist of the basis upon which the appeal is being brought. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0177 | Lukaszewski (Appellant) v The District Court in Torun, Poland (Respondent) | On appeal from the QBD Divisional Court (England and Wales)Issue Whether the obligation under section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 to give notice of an appeal within the permitted period includes a requirement that the would-be appellant must serve on the respondent within time a document that satisfies all of the following conditions: (i) it purports to be a notice of appeal; (ii) it identifies the appellant; (iii) it identifies the decision appealed against; and (iv) it sets out the gist of the basis upon which the appeal is being brought. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0173 | NJDB (Appellant) v JEG (Respondent) and another (Scotland) | On appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland)Issue Whether the court, in breach of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, failed to have proper regard to the welfare of the child in determining whether the father should have contact. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0145 | R (on the application of KM) (by his mother and litigation friend JM) (FC) (Appellant) v Cambridgeshire County Council (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issues (1) Whether R v Gloucester CC ex parte Barry [1997] AC 584 was correctly decided and, in consequence, whether Resource Allocation Schemes are a legitimate means for local authorities to apply to determine funding to be made available to persons in need by means of “direct payment”?(2) If Barry was correctly decided, and Resource Allocation Schemes acceptable, what level of explanation must the local authority provide of the sum awarded and whether sufficient reasons were given in this case? (3) Whether the Respondent’s decision in this case was irrational because the amount awarded was manifestly insufficient to meet the Appellant’s assessed eligible needs? Facts KM is 26 years old. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0143 | Perry and others No. 2 (Appellants) v Serious Organised Crime Agency (Respondent) | Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to make a civil recovery order and a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act in respect of property situated outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0129 | R (on the application of PH) (Appellant) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (Respondent) | On appeal from the Queen's Bench Division Divisional Court (England and Wales)Certified question Where in proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003 the Article 8 rights of the children of the defendant are arguably engaged, how should their interests be safeguarded and to what extent, if at all, is it necessary to modify the Supreme Court’s approach in Norris v Government of USA (No 2) in light of ZH (Tanzania)?Facts These appeals concern the respondent’s request for the extradition of two parents to Italy pursuant to European Arrest Warrants (“EAW”) to serve sentences of imprisonment. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0128 | R (on the application of HH) (Appellant) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (Respondent) | On appeal from the Queen's Bench Division Divisional Court (England and Wales)Certified question Where in proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003 the Article 8 rights of the children of the defendant are arguably engaged, how should their interests be safeguarded and to what extent, if at all, is it necessary to modify the Supreme Court’s approach in Norris v Government of USA (No 2) in light of ZH (Tanzania)?Facts These appeals concern the respondent’s request for the extradition of two parents to Italy pursuant to European Arrest Warrants (“EAW”) to serve sentences of imprisonment. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0079 | Tesco Stores Limited (Appellant) v Dundee City Council (Respondent) (Scotland) | On appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland)Issue Whether the Respondent correctly interpreted and applied its published planning policy. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0032 | TRIGGER - BAI (Run Off) Limited (In Scheme of Arrangement) (Appellant) v Thomas Bates and Son Limited (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0031 | TRIGGER - BAI (Run Off) Limited (In Scheme of Arrangement) (Appellant) v Durham (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0029 | TRIGGER - Municipal Mutual Insurance Limited (Respondent) v Zurich Insurance Company (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0028 | TRIGGER - Municipal Mutual Insurance Limited (Respondent) v Zurich Insurance Company and Adur District Council and others (Appellants) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0027 | TRIGGER - Independent Insurance Company Limited (Appellant) v Fleming and another (Respondents) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0026 | TRIGGER - Municipal Mutual Insurance Company (Appellant) v Zurich Insurance Company and others (Respondents) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0025 | TRIGGER - Excess Insurance Company Limited (Respondent) v Edwards (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0014 | In the matter of Peacock (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue (1) Whether section 16 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 survives the repeal of the Act following the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Commencement No. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0012 | TRIGGER - Excess Insurance Company Limited (Respondent) v Akzo Nobel UK Limited (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2011/0010 | TRIGGER - Excess Insurance Company Limited (Respondent) v Amec plc (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The construction of employers’ liability policies, in the context of liabilities incurred by employers for mesothelioma, under which an indemnity is provided if an injury or disease is ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ during the period of insurance. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0247 | Ministry of Defence (Respondent) v AB and others (Appellants) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue Whether the Court of Appeal (1) applied the wrong legal test for knowledge in section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980, and (2) adopted the wrong legal approach to the exercise of discretion under section 33 of the Act. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0240 | Z (Algeria) (FC), G (Algeria) (FC), U (Algeria) (FC) and Y (Algeria) (FC) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issues (1) Whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has the power to direct that evidence relied upon by the Appellants should be heard in private and, in particular, should not be disclosed by the Secretary of State to the authorities of the country to which it is sought to deport the Appellants? (2) Whether when SIAC adopts a ‘closed evidence’ procedure in proceedings concerning a decision to deport a foreign national on the grounds of national security, the applicant is entitled an ‘irreducible minimum’ of information about the risk which he is said to present?Facts The Appellants are foreign nationals whom the Secretary of State has decided to deport on grounds of national security. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0238 | W (Algeria) (FC) and BB (Algeria) (FC) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issues (1) Whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has the power to direct that evidence relied upon by the Appellants should be heard in private and, in particular, should not be disclosed by the Secretary of State to the authorities of the country to which it is sought to deport the Appellants? (2) Whether when SIAC adopts a ‘closed evidence’ procedure in proceedings concerning a decision to deport a foreign national on the grounds of national security, the applicant is entitled an ‘irreducible minimum’ of information about the risk which he is said to present?Facts The Appellants are foreign nationals whom the Secretary of State has decided to deport on grounds of national security. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0237 | PP (Algeria) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (formerly VV (Jordan ) (FC) and PP (Algeria) (FC) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issues (1) Whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has the power to direct that evidence relied upon by the Appellants should be heard in private and, in particular, should not be disclosed by the Secretary of State to the authorities of the country to which it is sought to deport the Appellants? (2) Whether when SIAC adopts a ‘closed evidence’ procedure in proceedings concerning a decision to deport a foreign national on the grounds of national security, the applicant is entitled an ‘irreducible minimum’ of information about the risk which he is said to present?Facts The Appellants are foreign nationals whom the Secretary of State has decided to deport on grounds of national security. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0201 | Seldon (Appellant) v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The correct approach to justification of prima facie direct age discrimination contrary to Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0194 | In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issues(1) When does the statutory trust arise?(2) Do the primary pooling arrangements apply to client money in house accounts?(3) Is participation in the pool dependent on actual segregation?Facts The facts which form the basis of the appeal are assumed facts. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0182 | Perry and others (Appellants) v Serious Organised Crime Agency (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issues (1) Whether the Respondent has power under Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to issue and give certain notices requiring the provision of information (“information notices”) to persons who are outside the jurisdiction; (2) Whether the Respondent’s posting of such notices to the Appellants’ London address amounted to a valid “giving” of the notices. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0166 | Flood (Respondent) v Times Newspapers Limited (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue Whether the Court of Appeal’s refusal to uphold the defence of qualified privilege based on Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was in conflict with established principles and with findings of fact made by the trial judge; whether the defence should continue to apply to online publication without amendment to reflect the conclusion of the investigation to which it referred. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0157 | Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Respondent) v E.N.E. Kos 1 Limited (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue Following the valid withdrawal, under a time charterparty, of a vessel with cargo onboard, whether a shipowner is entitled to compensation for the detention of the vessel and/or the cost of bunkers consumed for all or some of the period from the time of such withdrawal until completion of discharge of the cargo. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0154 | Ravat (Respondent) v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited (Appellant) (Scotland) | On appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland)Issue What, in light of Lawson v Serco [2006] UKHL 3, is the correct test for determining whether an Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim brought by a person who works abroad for a UK company. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0149 | R (on the application of ST (Eritrea))(FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue Whether the Court of Appeal erred: (1) as to the true meaning of the words “lawfully present” in Article 32 of the Refugee Convention; (2) in concluding that the House of Lords’ decision in Szoma was incorrect and/or inapplicable; and (3) as to the nature of the obligations of the UK under the Refugee Convention and/or the Qualification Directive to refrain from expelling an individual with refugee status. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0145 | Sugar (Deceased) (Represented by Fiona Paveley) (Appellant) v British Broadcasting Corporation and another (Respondents) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue Whether a report which analysed the Respondent’s coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and which was considered at a senior level within the Respondent, was “information held for purposes other than those of journalism art or literature” so as to fall within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0140 | Rabone and another (Appellants) v Pennine Care NHS Trust (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issues 1. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0102 | Homer (Appellant) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue The appeal concerns the proper interpretation of “particular disadvantage” in Regulation 3(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (“the Regulations”). | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0097 | Humphreys (FC) (Appellant) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Issue Whether the indirectly discriminatory provisions of Child Tax Support Regulations 2002 providing that the payment of child tax credits (“CTC”) in respect of a child in shared care by two parents is to be made to the parent with main responsibility for the child can be objectively justified under Article 14 ECHR. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0088 | R v Waya (Appellant) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (England and Wales)N. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2010/0084 | Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Group Litigation (Respondents) v Commissioners of the Inland Revenue and another (Appellants) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)Facts Almost all of the FII Claimants are members of the British American Tobacco group of companies. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2009/0192 | Fraser (Appellant) v Her Majesty's Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) | On appeal from the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)Issue Whether failure by the Lord Advocate to disclose a precognition that may have undermined a significant element of the prosecution case (as led at trial) resulted in the Appellant being denied the right to a fair trial as required by Article 6(1) ECHR. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2009/0188 | KC (South Africa) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) | On appeal from the Court of Appeal of England & Wales (Civil Division). | Full case details |
| UKSC 2009/0102 | R (on the application of M) (FC) v London Borough of Lambeth (Respondents) and one other action | On appeal from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)IssuesWhether the question, “child or no?” is a jurisdictional fact. | Full case details |
| UKSC 2009/0099 | PE (Cameroon) (Respondent) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) | PE (Cameroon) (Respondent) v. | Full case details |
Displaying 43 results