In 2020 Lady Hale is the President of the Supreme Court, Baron Mance is the Deputy President.
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.
All dates are for 2020 unless expressly stated otherwise.
2020 case summaries
Unless otherwise noted, cases were heard by a panel of 5 judges.
Cases involving Scots law are highlighted in orange. Cases involving Northern Irish law are highlighted in green.
HMRC could issue a post-clearance demand (in respect of customs duty) after the expiry of the normal three year time limit where criminal proceedings were relevant. However, HMRC cannot issue demands unitarily without any time limit as this would be in breach of the fundamental principle of legal certainty under EU law.[1]
Conditions of bail under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 which required an individual who lacked immigration status to stay at home for eight hours a day constituted false imprisonment.[4]
A person was not guilty under section 4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 where the explosives were being used for experimentation and self-education and did not have an ulterior unlawful purpose.[8]
A decision by the government to co-operate with US law enforcement over the prosecution was two alleged Islamic State members was unlawful without assurance from the US that the individuals would not face the death penalty.[10]
The court referred a case relating to whether a trader can deduct input VAT in the absence of a VAT invoice and whether a trader has an entitlement to deduct VAT on supplies which are carried out by another entity to the Court of Justice of the European Union[16]
Ministerial guidance to administering authorities of Local Government Pension Scheme funds on how to discharge their investment powers was unlawful as the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 did not allow central government to impose policy on administering authorities.[17]
The deportation of an individual who had come to the UK as a teenager from Zimbabwe and was subsequently convicted of a number of serious offences was blocked amid concerns his life would be shortened by HIV and suitable medical care was not available in Zimbabwe. This upheld the position established in Paposhvili v Belgium.[18]
A landlord was in breach of its obligations to enforce tenant covenants where the landlord had granted a licence to a tenant to undertake structural works as the granting of such a licence had put the landlord out of its power to enforce an absolute covenant preventing structural works.[19]
The status of two leadurns placed on limestoneplinths which had been classified as listed buildings were able to be revisited by a planning inspector in considering whether or not they were in face 'buildings'.[21]
Cash machines located inside and outside of retail stores were not separate hereditaments from the stores or shops and as such should not have been subject to separate business rates on top of normal store rates.[22]
A libel case was overturned after the court found that Justice Robert Jay had not allowed a claim to be properly presented. Further, he had harassed and intimidated the claimant therefore the original trial was unfair. A retrial was ordered.[24]
Adjudication on the application of a liquidator of a company is not incompatible with the insolvency process and the existence of the insolvency set-off does not result in a claim ceasing to exist. The fact that an adjudication award cannot be enforced immediately does not mean that the adjudication process is futile.[26]
It is not a breach of the right to family life for a child's siblings to be denied "relevant person" status (being a person who has had significant involvement in the upbringing of the child and is therefore entitled to be notified of and attend any children's hearing).[27]
The claims by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc in respect of patents registered for a new type of genetically modified mouse which included a hybrid version of the gene that produces antibodies was invalid as the patents failed to adhere to the rule of sufficiency (being that documents filed with the patent need to be detailed enough to enable scientifically skilled readers to recreate the invention).[28]
A change in calculating a price apportionment for a bingo promoter between the stake (outside of the scope of VAT) and a participation fee (subject to VAT) did not result in a decrease in the total consideration that enabled the taxpayer to claim a VAT adjustment under the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995.[29]
There is no automatic right for third party with an interest in property to make representations at the first stage confiscation proceedings in respect of that property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where such representations could be made later at the enforcement stage.[30]
A maintenance claim could be pursued in England, where the claimant was now residing, rather than Scotland, despite the fact that the petition for divorce was filed in Scotland and the couple had lived in Scotland for most of their marriage. It was considered that the judgement might encourage 'divorce tourism' where differing settlements arise under English Law and Scots Law.[31]
The reflective loss principle should be strictly limited to cases where claims are brought by a shareholder in respect of a loss suffered by in their capacity as a shareholder and should not apply to claims by creditors.[32]
A covert investigation by paedophile hunters and the use by authorities of evidence collected from this investigation did not breach an individual's right to a private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.[33]
It would permissible for a trial judge, in determining whether a bribe had been paid, to have regard to the possibility that a forced confession of bribery had been obtained by way of torture (and would therefore be inadmissible), even if actual torture had not been proved.[35]
A transfer between pensions was not a 'transfer of value' for the purpose of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 as the motive for the transfer was not to confer a benefit on another. However, the failure by an individual to take up their rights to pension benefits was a 'transfer of value' which would be subject to Inheritance Tax.[36]
A restriction on a property owner from allowing further retail units from being built in a shopping center which would be in direct competition with an anchor tenant was a reasonable and proportionate restrictive covenant and therefore was enforceable by the anchor tenant.[37]
Where an arbitration agreement does not specify a governing law then the law of the underlying main contract will ordinarily govern the arbitration agreement. Where the main contract does not specify a governing law then it is for the courts to determine the law with which the arbitration agreement is most closely connected.[39]
The practices of a charity which provided social housing available primarily to the Orthodox Jewish community was proportionate to meet the needs or alleviate the disadvantages suffered by a particular group and therefore constituted permissible direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The exemptions from the Act which allow charities to restrict the provision to benefits for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic is not subject to a further test for proportionality.[41]
The treatment by the Home Office of an individual who had applied for an extension of his skilled worker visa in good time and which had been refused on the basis that the Secretary of State had revoked the licence of his sponsoring employer without informing the individual, was unfair.[42]
Despite the illegality of her actions, a person who had engaged in mortgage fraud was not barred from bringing a claim for professional negligence against her solicitors for negligently failing to register the forms for the transfer of the property.[43]
A NHS Foundation Trust, which had accepted that it has been negligent in respect of the care of a person receiving care for paranoid schizophrenia, was not required to pay compensation to the individual where the individual subsequently incurred a loss as a result of committing a serious criminal act.[44]
The doctorine of Res judicata (preventing a party from re-litigating any claim) did not mean that decision of the General Court of the European Union was binding on domestic proceedings as not all rights of appeal had been exhausted.[45]
A developer who was seeking to develop land in breach of a restrictive covenant which prevented the development of land adjoining a children's cancer hospice could not rely on the covenant being "contrary to public interest" where it had already breached the covenant by its own actions.[46]
The Limitation Act 1980 applies to claims for restitution of monies paid under a mistake of law. The six-year period allowed under the Limitation Act applies from the date on which the claimant has discovered the mistake (or could have reasonably discovered it) rather than the date on which the loss was made. When relying on another judgement to determine whether a claim is possible, the date on which a claimant could reasonable have discovered a loss may be earlier than the date of that other judgement if, using reasonable diligence, the claimant could have discovered that they had a worthwhile claim.[48]
An arbitrator has a duty to make disclosures of matters that might reasonably be considered to give rise to doubts as to their impartiality in respect of a matter they are seeking to resolve. In the specific circumstances of the case in hand, the court found that there were not justifiable doubts as to the arbitrators impartiality.[49]
Non-negotiable gaming chips and free bet vouchers issued by a casino as promotional tolls in order to encourage customers to gamble did not have any monetary value and therefore are not required to be taken into account in computing the profits of the casino for the purpose of calculating gaming duty.[50]
A body which takes a decision in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity (in this case, the Parole Board), and then declines to defend it when it is challenged in court proceedings, will not ordinarily face an order for costs.[51]
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had erred in law in refusing to make a Collective Proceedings Order in collective proceedings brought by a representative of a group of consumers against companies in the Mastercard group[citation needed]
The Government had taken proper account of the UK's climate change commitments, including the Paris Agreement. Heathrow Airport may apply for planning permission for a third runway.[citation needed]
The phrase 'exceptional circumstances' does not import an additional hurdle before a Zambrano carer can be deported from the territory of the EU[citation needed]
Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption,, KC, is a British author, medieval historian, barrister and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018, and a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal from 2019 to 2024.
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.
David Philip Pannick, Baron Pannick, is a British barrister and a crossbencher in the House of Lords. He practises mainly in the areas of public law and human rights. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Andrew Stephen Burrows, Lord Burrows, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. His academic work centres on private law. He is the main editor of the compendium English Private Law and the convenor of the advisory group that produced A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment as well as textbooks on English contract law. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on 2 June 2020. As Professor of the Law of England, University of Oxford and senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford at the time of his appointment, he was the first Supreme Court judge to be appointed directly from academia.
Robert John Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir, is a Scottish judge who has been President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since January 2020. He was the principal judge in the Commercial Court in Scotland before being promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2008. He is an authority on human rights law in Scotland and elsewhere; he served as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights. He was also a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.
R v Central Criminal Court[2014] UKSC 17 was a 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The court held that as inter partes proceedings created a lis between the parties, equal treatment meant that ex parte evidence in general could not be adduced.
Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.
Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 170 is a UK labour law case, concerning the illegality in the contract of employment.
R v Jogee[2016] UKSC 8 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that reversed previous case law on joint enterprise. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling jointly with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was considering an appeal from Jamaica, Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKPC 7.
Patel v Mirza[2016] UKSC 42 is an English contract law case concerning the scope of the illegality principle relating to insider trading under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. In 2020, the Supreme Court described this case as having set out a "a significant development in the law relating to illegality at common law".
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.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful.
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.
The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others [2021] UKSC 1 is a United Kingdom Supreme Court case determining whether commercial insurance policies for business interruption cover claims due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns. The case has implications on disputed business interruption claims worth at least £1.2 billion and affecting 370,000 businesses, primarily in the hospitality and entertainment sectors. On 15 January 2021, the Supreme Court found in favour of the claimants.
R v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It caused controversy due to the majority's suggestion that courts will not give effect to ouster clauses even when Parliament's intent is clear, thus undermining the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2017.
This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2019.
This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2021.
This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2017.
This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
