In law, an en banc session is when all the judges of a court sit to hear a case, not just one judge or a smaller panel of judges. For courts like the United States Courts of Appeals in which each case is heard by a three-judge panel instead of the entire court, en banc review is usually used only for unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is an especially significant issue at stake. En banc is a French phrase meaning "in bench".
The Supreme Court of Israel is the highest court in Israel. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all other courts, and in some cases original jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom's highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.
David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury is an English judge. He served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary until the House of Lords' judicial functions were transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2009, at which point he became Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales. Neuberger was appointed to the Supreme Court, as its President, in 2012. He now (controversially) serves as a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and formerly served as the Chair of the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom. He was appointed to the Singapore International Commercial Court as from 2018.
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.
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy is a decision of the English Court of Appeal in English contract law, dealing with undue influence. One of the three judges hearing the case, Lord Denning MR advanced the argument that under English law, all impairments of autonomy could be collected under a single principle of "inequality of bargaining power".
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 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.
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.
Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 is a 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on whether expert witnesses retained by a party in litigation can be sued for professional negligence in England and Wales, or whether they have the benefit of immunity from suit. The case involved a psychologist (Kaney) instructed as an expert witness in a personal injury claim, who was said to have negligently signed a statement of matters agreed with the expert instructed by the opposing side, in which she made a number of concessions that weakened the claim considerably. As a result, according to the injured claimant (Jones), he had to settle the claim for much less than he would have obtained had his expert not been careless. To succeed in the claim, he had to overturn an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had decided that preparation of a joint statement with the other side's expert was covered by immunity from suit. Kaney therefore succeeded in getting the claim struck out before trial on an application heard by Mr Justice Blake in the High Court of Justice. The judge issued a certificate allowing the claimant to "leapfrog" the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court to appeal against his decision.
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.
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 is a decision by the UK Supreme Court concerning the beneficial entitlement to a co-owned family home under a constructive trust. The court ruled there was a 90:10 split of ownership in favour of the main child-caring partner who contributed 80% of the equity to the home in which she lived. The non-resident partner had also ceased to pay bills and maintenance for the children for a considerable time.
Regina v Armel Gnango[2011] UKSC 59 is the leading English criminal law case on the interaction of joint enterprise, transferred malice, and exemption from criminal liability where a party to what would normally be a crime is the victim of it. The Supreme Court held, restoring Gnango's conviction for the murder of Magda Pniewska, that he was guilty of murder notwithstanding the fact that he had not fired the shot which killed Pniewska during the shoot out which led to her death, and that the fatal shot had been fired by his opponent in an attempt to kill him. The judgment of the Supreme Court has been criticised over the alleged extent to which it was designed to mollify public opinion, and in the context of debates over the nature of the doctrine of joint enterprise.
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.
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 81 judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2013. They are ordered by neutral citation.
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.
Bull and another v Hall and another[2013] UKSC 73 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Peter and Hazelmary Bull and Martin Hall and Steven Preddy. Hall and Preddy, a homosexual couple, brought the case after the Bulls refused to give them a double room in their guesthouse, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court held the rulings of the lower courts in deciding for Hall and Preddy and against the Bulls. The court said that Preddy and Hall faced discrimination which could not be justified by the Bulls' right to religious belief. It was held that people in the United Kingdom could not justify discrimination against others on the basis of their sexual orientation due to their religious beliefs.