2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Last updated

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2010 and statistics associated thereupon. Since the Supreme Court began its work on 1 October 2009, this year was its first full year of operation. In total, 58 cases were heard in 2010.

Contents

The table lists judgments made by the court and the opinions of the judges in each case. Judges are treated as having concurred in another's judgment when they either formally attach themselves to the judgment of another or speak only to acknowledge their concurrence with one or more judges. Any judgment which reaches a conclusion which differs from the majority on one or more major points of the appeal has been treated as dissent.

Because every judge in the court is entitled to hand down a judgment, it is not uncommon for 'factions' to be formed who reach the same conclusion in different ways, or for all members of the court to reach the same conclusion in different ways. The table does not reflect this.

Table key


Delivered a judgment (majority)

Concurred in the judgment of another justice (majority)

Delivered a judgment (dissenting)

Concurred in the judgment of another justice (dissent)

Did not participate in the decision

2010 Judgments

Case nameCitationArguedDecided Phillips Hope Saville Rodger Walker Hale Brown Mance Collins Kerr Clarke Dyson
HM Treasury v Al-Ghabra [1] [2010] UKSC 15 and 22 October 200927 January
HM Treasury v Ahmed [1] [2010] UKSC 25-8 October 200927 January
Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner [2010] UKSC 317 November 200927 January
Grays Timber Products Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2010] UKSC 414-15 December 20093 February
HM Treasury v Ahmed (No.2) [1] [2010] UKSC 528 January4 February
Allison v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 68 December 200910 February
McInnes v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 78-9 December 200910 February
Tomlinson v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 823-24 November 200917 February
Norris v USA [2] [2010] UKSC 930 November - 1 December 200924 February
Martin v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 108-10 December 20093 March
R (Lewis) v Redcar & Cleveland BC [2010] UKSC 1118-20 January3 March
Re W (Children) [2010] UKSC 121-2 March3 March
Agbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje [2010] UKSC 133-4 November 200910 March
RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 142-3 November 200910 March
R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 1513-14 January17 March
British Airways v Williams [2010] UKSC 1624-25 February24 March
R (F) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 173-4 February21 April
Farstad Supply v Enviroco [2010] UKSC 189–10 March5 May
Inveresk plc v Tullis Russell Papermakers [2010] UKSC 191–2 March5 May
R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton CC [2010] UKSC 201–2 February12 May
ZN (Afghanistan) v Entry Clearance Officer [2010] UKSC 2115 February12 May
Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 2222–23 February19 May
OB v Aventis Pasteur SA [2010] UKSC 2315 April26 May
Home Secretary v AP [1] [2010] UKSC 245 May16 June
MS (Palestinian Territories) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 2526–27 April16 June
Home Secretary v AP [1] [2010] UKSC 265 May23 June
JR17 (Judicial Review App.) [2010] UKSC 2719–20 April23 June
Austin v Southwark LBC [2010] UKSC 2821–22 April23 June
R(Smith) v Defence Secretary [2] [3] [2010] UKSC 2915–17 March30 June
R (Noone) v Drake Hall Prison [4] [2010] UKSC 3011–12 May30 June
HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 3110-12 May7 July
Southern Pacific Loans v Walker [2010] UKSC 3213 May7 July
A v Essex CC [5] [2010] UKSC 3324-25 March14 July
O'Brien v MOJ [2010] UKSC 3414-15 June28 July
Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 3522-24 June28 July
R (ZO (Somalia)) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 3617-18 May28 July
Morrison Sports v Scottish Power [2010] UKSC 3716 June28 July
RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH (No. 2) [6] [2010] UKSC 382–3 December 200921 July
R v Rollins [1] [4] [2010] UKSC 3912-13 July28 July
R (Electoral Commission) v Westminster Magistrates' Court [1] [2010] UKSC 408-9 June29 July
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 4119 July13 October
Radmacher v Granatino [2] [2010] UKSC 4222-23 March20 October
Cadder v HM Advocate [1] [2010] UKSC 4324–26 May26 October
Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading v TMT Asia [1] [2010] UKSC 4414-15 July27 October
Manchester CC v Pinnock [2] [7] [2010] UKSC 455-8 July3 November
Dallah Real Estate & Tourism v Pakistan [2010] UKSC 4628-30 June3 November
Multi-Link Leisure v North Lanarkshire Council [2010] UKSC 4712 October17 November
R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 4819-20 July17 November
MA (Somalia) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 4911 October24 November
RBS v Wilson [2010] UKSC 5013-14 October24 November
Holland v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2010] UKSC 5121-22 July24 November
R v Chaytor [2] [2010] UKSC 5218-19 October1 December
Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 5326-27 July1 December
R (Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] UKSC 5425 October8 December
Progress Property v Moorgarth Group [2010] UKSC 555 October8 December
Principal Reporter v K [2010] UKSC 5620-21 October15 December
R (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2010] UKSC 5711 November15 December
HM Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd [2010] UKSC 582-4 November15 December

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 An augmented panel of 7 judges sat in this case
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 An augmented panel of 9 judges sat in this case
  3. The chart shows the court's decision on the jurisdiction issue. The justices unanimously dismissed the appeal on the inquest issue.
  4. 1 2 Lord Judge CJ also sat in on this case and agreed with the majority.
  5. The chart shows the justices decision on the principal issue: whether Article 2 of the First Protocol of the ECHR established an absolute right to education that met A's special needs. For the decisions on the other two issues see the judgment itself.
  6. This was a brief judgment on form of order and costs and, as such, was not specifically attributed to any of the five judges in [2010] UKSC 14
  7. Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger also sat in on this case and gave the leading judgment for the unanimous majority.

Related Research Articles

In law, an en banc session is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court rather than by one judge or a smaller panel of judges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Verdict</span> Formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to it by the judge

In law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge. In a bench trial, the judge's decision near the end of the trial is simply referred to as a finding. In England and Wales, a coroner's findings used to be called verdicts but are, since 2009, called conclusions.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. Hung juries usually result in the case being tried again.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caribbean Court of Justice</span>

The Caribbean Court of Justice is the judicial institution of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Established in 2005, it is based in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Korea</span> Highest ordinary court of South Korea

The Supreme Court of Korea is the highest ordinary court in the judicial branch of South Korea, seated in Seocho, Seoul. Established under Chapter 5 of the Constitution of South Korea, the Court has ultimate and comprehensive jurisdiction over all cases except those cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Korea. It consists of fourteen Justices, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Korea. The Supreme Court is at the top of the hierarchy of all ordinary courts in South Korea, and traditionally represented the conventional judiciary of South Korea. The Supreme Court has equivalent status as one of the two highest courts in South Korea. The other is the Constitutional Court of Korea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedures of the Supreme Court of Canada</span>

The procedures of the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing cases is established in the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court Act, and by tradition.

A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a judicial panel in the course of resolving a legal dispute, providing the decision reached to resolve the dispute, and usually indicating the facts which led to the dispute and an analysis of the law used to arrive at the decision.

This is a complete list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between the court's opening on 1 October 2009 and the end of that year. Most of the cases were heard in the House of Lords before judgments were given in the new Supreme Court. The court heard 17 cases during this time; they are listed in order of each case's Neutral citation number.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2011. They are ordered by Neutral citation.

<i>R v Horncastle</i>

R v Horncastle & Others[2009] UKSC 14 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding hearsay evidence and the compatibility of UK hearsay law with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case represents another stage in the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the higher courts of the United Kingdom about whether it is acceptable to base convictions "solely or to a decisive extent" on evidence made by a witness who is identified but does not appear in court.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2014. They are ordered by neutral citation.

<i>Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd</i> 2005 Supreme Court of New Zealand decision on the determination of employee or contractor status

Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd was a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand regarding the real status of a worker as either an employee or an independent contractor. The case concerned whether or not the Employment Court had erred in law by determining that Bryson was an employee of Three Foot Six Ltd. The decision has been made redundant in the film industry by the passage in 2010 of the Employment Relations Amendment Act during the production of The Hobbit.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2015 as of 8 August. So far 57 cases have been decided and these are ordered by neutral citation.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2012. They are ordered by Neutral citation.

This is a list of the 81 judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2013. They are ordered by neutral citation.

<i>R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice</i> Case brought before UK Supreme Court regarding the right to die in English law.

R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice was a 2014 judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that considered the question of the right to die in English law.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2016. 65 cases were decided and these are ordered by neutral citation.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2017. 5 cases have been decided as of 25 January 2017 and these are ordered by neutral citation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scottish Sentencing Council</span>

The Scottish Sentencing Council is an advisory non-departmental public body in Scotland that produces sentencing guidelines for use in the High Court of Justiciary, sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts. Judges, sheriffs, and justices of the peace must use the guidelines to inform the sentence they pronounce against a convict, and they must give reasons for not following the guidelines.