2022 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 the year 2022.

Contents

In 2022 Lord Reed is the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Hodge 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 2022 unless expressly stated otherwise.

2022 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.

Case nameCitationDateLegal subjectSummary of decision
FirstPort Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court RTM Company and others [2022] UKSC 1 12 January 2022 Right to Manage, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002,The definition of the premises over which the tenants of a self contained block of flats had the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 did not include shared estate facilities which were also used by other blocks of flats. The court determined that such an extension of the definition of premises would result in outcomes that were "absurd and unworkable" as, amongst other things, it would result in the tenants of the other flats having shared estate facilities provided by a right to manage company in which those other tenants did not have a legal relationship. [1] [2]
PWR v Director of Public Prosecutions , Akdogan and another v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] UKSC 2 26 January 2022 Terrorism Act 2000, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights Two points were decided namely:
R (on the application of O (a minor, by her litigation friend AO)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (on the application of The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 		[2022] UKSC 3 2 February 2022 Ultra Vires, British Nationality Act 1981, Immigration Act 2014 Parliament had authorised in primary legislation the imposition by subordinate legislation of a fee for the registration of a minor as a British Citizen. [5] [6]
Public Prosecutors Office of the Athens Court of Appeal v O'Connor [2022] UKSC 4 2 February 2022 Statutory Interpretation, Extradition Act 2003 Where a person's legal representative had stated orally in court that an appeal would be lodged against an extradition order this could not be attributed as an action of the person. As such the appeal to the previous judgement ordering the extradition was not valid as section 26(5) of the Extradition Act 2003 required that "the person did everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice [of appeal] was given as soon as it could be given". [7] [8]
Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 16 February 2022 Misuse of private information, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights Two main issues were considered:
  • A person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation.
  • The confidentiality of a confidential law enforcement letter received by Bloomberg was a relevant important factor and rendered the information private and prevented Bloomberg from publishing on the basis of public interest. [9] [10]
Craig v Her Majesty's Advocate (for the Government of the United States of America) [2022] UKSC 6 23 February 2022 United Kingdom constitutional law, Scotland Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights The Lord Advocate (of Scotland) cannot order the extradition of a person if those acts would be incompatible with the persons rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The failure by the Home Secretary to bring into force the forum bar provisions [lower-alpha 1] in Scotland (having been brought into force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) was unlawful. Therefore, the extradition procedure did not accord with the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and were incompatible with the individuals rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [11] [12]
Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga [2022] UKSC 7 9 March 2022 English land law, Housing Act 1985 Two issued were decided
  • Where a fixed term secure tenancy had been granted by Croydon London Borough Council and the tenancy conditions had subsequently been breached (antisocial behaviour and rent arrears), the council could not terminate the tenancy unless there was specific provision in the agreement for early termination and the council had sought to rely on such provisions. (In the specific circumstances the council's claim failed as they had not sought to rely on such provisions).
  • An agreement that provided the council to seek an over for possession from the Court at any time if the tenant breached the terms of the agreement constituted a valid forfeiture clause. [13] [14]
Bott & Co Solicitors v Ryanair DAC [2022] UKSC 8 16 March 2022 Equitable Lien A firm of solicitors (Bott & Co) had an equitable lien over the compensation paid by Ryanair for passenger compensation claims for flight cancellations and delays where Ryanair were on notice that Bott & Co had been retained in resect of the claims. A change of policy by Ryanair from makings payments to Bott & Co (who previously then deducted their fee under the equitable lien) to making payments directly to the individuals and the fact that the claims were unlikely to be subject to litigation did not prevent Bott & Co from having an equitable lien (the consequence of which being that Bott & Co could pursue Ryanair for the fees due from the individuals). Decided by way of a 3–2 majority. [15] [16]
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v NCL Investments Ltd and another [2022] UKSC 9 23 March 2022 UK Corporation Tax, Corporation Tax Act 2009 Accounting debits arising under International Financial Reporting Standard 2 (IFRS 2) were a deductible expense for the purpose of UK corporation tax. The court confirmed that:
  • Such amounts were such that disregarding the debits would not be an adjustment required or authorised by law,
  • Such amounts should not be disallowed as an expense that was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the rate,
  • Such amounts are not disallowed on the basis that they are capital in nature,
  • Such amounts were not "held... under and employee benefit scheme" and therefore could not be subject to the specific disallowances in respect of employee benefit contributions. [lower-alpha 2] [17] [18]
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd [2022] UKSC 10 27 April 2022 EU Law, UK Tax Law,The application of a deemed withholding tax on manufactured overseas dividends [lower-alpha 3] on stock lending arrangements was not contrary to Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As the counterparty borrowers to stock lending arrangements typically had sufficient withholding tax credits to fully offset on any deemed withholding tax on manufactured overseas dividends, the withholding tax could not be considered to discourage investment in foreign shares relative to UK shares by tax-exempt investors. [19] [20]
R (on the application of Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2022] UKSC 11 27 April 2022 Voter identification laws, Representation of the People Act 2000 Two main points were determined
Zipvit Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2022] UKSC 12 11 May 2022 UK Tax Law, Value Added Tax Judgment following a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union [lower-alpha 4] (CJEU) in a previous supreme court case (see 2020 UKSC 15). The CJEU had confirmed that a trader could not recover VAT on supplies made to it where the original supplier and HMRC had mistakenly treated the original supplies as exempt from VAT as the VAT in question had not been 'due or paid'. The decision of the CJEU was affirmed by the supreme court by dismissing the taxpayers appeal. [23] [24]
R v Maughan [2022] UKSC 13 18 May 2022 Criminal Law Two matters in respect of sentencing policies were decided by the court:
  • The term 'proceedings' in Article 33 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which provides that the court shall, in determining the appropriate sentence, take into account the 'stage in proceedings' at which a defendant indicates their intention to plead guilty, did not include the investigative process prior to a charge or issue of summons being made. However, this did not prevent the courts from adopting a sentencing policy which treats as relevant the failure to admit wrongdoing during interview and therefore made no error of law.
  • The purpose of discount for guilty pleads is to obtain the utilitarian benefits of saving time, cost, and providing reassurance for witnesses and victims. Where an offender is caught red handed they may have little choice other than to plead guilty and may not deserve the same level of discount as in other cases. [25] [26]
Competition and Markets Authority v Flynn Pharma Ltd
Competition and Markets Authority v Pfizer Inc 		[2022] UKSC 14 25 May 2022 Costs in English law There is no generally applicable principle to provide that all public bodies should enjoy a protected costs position when they lose a case which they have brought or defended in the exercise of their public functions. A factor that should be considered in awarding costs in such circumstances is the risk that there will be a "chilling effect" on the conduct of the public body, and its ability to act in the public interest, where awards of costs are routinely made against it. This assessment is likely to be best made by the relevant court of tribunal in question, in this case the Competition Appeal Tribunal, who had acted reasonably in applying a "costs following the event" starting point. [27] [28]
Secretary of State for the Home Department v SC [2022] UKSC 15 15 June 2022 Immigration law, UK Borders Act 2007, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights The court had to consider a number of matters in respect of an individual who had, together with his mother been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a result of his mother having been persecuted by gang members in Jamaica but had subsequently committed criminal offences which would qualify the individual for deportation under the UK Borders Act 2007. Due to the threats against the individual and protections given by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the individual could only be deported to Jamaica if the individual could reasonable be expected to stay in the rural areas of Jamaica ("internal relocation"). In considering deportation the court determined that:
  • The correct approach to whether internal relocation is possible requires a historical assessments of the individuals circumstances and should not include a value judgement of what is "due" to him as a criminal.
  • The First-tier Tribunal did not err in determining that the individual could not reasonably be expected to live in a rural area of Jamaica due to the medical requirements, family relationships and geographical relationships of the individual.
  • The First-tier Tribunal did not err in concluding that the individual was socially and culturally integrated in the UK as this is a fact sensitive judgement.
  • Where the public interest requested the deportation of a foreign criminal a full proportionality assessment was required to weigh any interference with their rights to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [29] [30]
AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2022] UKSC 16 15 June 2022 Procedural law, Civil Procedure Rules The court considered the discretion of a court to reconsider a judgement and order after it has been given but before the formal order has been sealed by the court. In such circumstances a judge faced with an application to reconsider is required to consider such an application in line with the overriding principle to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. However, significant weighting should be given to the finality principle, being that a judgement made is final, before a court should entertain reconsidering a judgement. [31] [32]
In the matter H-W (Children) [2022] UKSC 17 15 June 2022 Children Act 1989 A care order, in this case a care order made in relation to three children which approved care plans for removal of the children into separate long term foster placements, must be necessary to meet the needs of the children having regard to the advantages and disadvantages of all options. In considering the specific case, the court found that the process adopted by judge who originally made the care orders was flawed as it did not adequately assess the prospects of various other options. The case was therefore remitted to the lower courts of a rehearing. [33] [34]
Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd
Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Ashloch Ltd and another
On Tower UK Ltd v AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd 		[2022] UKSC 18 22 June 2022 Property Law, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Electronic Communications Code The court was required to determine who is the 'occupier of the land' in circumstances where a telecommunicators operator has been granted 'code rights [lower-alpha 5] ' which enabled them to install and operate network communications apparatus on land which is not owned by the telecommunications operator. The court found that the term must be given effect by reference to the intention of the Electronic Communications Code and therefore the occupier and operator at not one and the same and therefore an operator is not prevented from obtaining additional code rights in respect of the same land on which it already holds code rights. [35] [36]
Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd and another [2022] UKSC 19 29 June 2022 Consumer Protection Act 1987 A metal on metal prosthetic hip was found not to be defective in law. In considering whether the prosthetic hip was defective the court made the following key findings:
  • The nature of a product may be such that there can be no entitlement to an absolute guarantee of safety,
  • Generalised expressions of professional concern regarding a type of project (in this case metal on metal prosthesis) does not mean that a specific product is defective provided the product would not be worse when measured against existing equivalent products,
  • The removal of a product from the market for commercial reasons does not necessarily support that a product is defective,

[37] [38]

Basfar v Wong [2022] UKSC 20 6 July 2022 Employment law, human trafficking, modern slavery, diplomatic immunity, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations A Saudi Arabian diplomat who alleged subjected a domestic staff member to conditions that would constitute modern slavery cannot rely on diplomatic immunity to prevent claims for compensation. In a majority opinion the court held that the exploitation of a domestic worker for the profit of a diplomat would constitute a 'commercial activity activity' and therefore would fall within once of the exemptions from immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. [39] [40]
Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21 20 July 2022 Employment law, Working Time Directive 2003 Employees who only work for part of a given year (in this case a teacher who is only contracted to work during term time) are entitled to holiday pay on the same basis as employees who work all year. [41] [42]

Notes

  1. ↑ The forum bar provisions are intended to prevent extradition from taking place where the offences could be fairly and effectively tried in the UK and where it is not in the interest of justice for the person to be extradited.
  2. ↑ Note: Subsequent to the periods subject to this case statutory legislation was introduced from March 2013 to disallow the deduction of accounting debits under IFRS 2 or equivalent accounting standards
  3. ↑ Manufactured overseas dividends are a concept under UK tax law in respect of returns made where a person (the lender) transfers the ownership of shares in a non-UK company to another person (the borrower) on terms such that the borrower repays the lending by way of the return of equivalent shares at the end of the lending person and the borrower receives a return that is economically equivalent to the dividends paid on the shares during the lending period.
  4. ↑ Judgement of the CJEU released on 13 January 2022 with case reference C-156/20
  5. ↑ Being rights covered by paragraph 9 of the Electronic Communications Code as set under the Communications Act 2003

Related Research Articles

Sir Patrick Elias, PC, is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Sedley</span> British lawyer

Sir Stephen John Sedley is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales from 1999 to 2011 and was a visiting professor at the University of Oxford from 2011 to 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir</span> President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pimlico Plumbers</span> British plumbing firm based in London

Pimlico Plumbers is a London-based plumbing firm established in 1979. With revenues of £20m as of 2015, it is London's largest independent plumbing company.

Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSC 44 is an English contract law case concerning the interpretation of contracts, raised on appeal from a Commercial Court hearing in 2009.

<i>Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth</i>

Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth[2011] UKSC 39 was a 2011 court ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned an intellectual property dispute over the production of Lucasfilm's Stormtrooper costumes by model maker Andrew Ainsworth. Mr Ainsworth argued that the helmets, which he continues to manufacture and sell, were functional props covered only by design right legislation, as opposed to Lucasfilm's assertion that they were sculptures or art which fall under copyright law. Design right protection is retained for 15 or 10 years, whereas copyright protection in this case would last 70 years after the death of the author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Leggatt, Lord Leggatt</span> British judge (born 1957)

George Andrew Midsomer Leggatt, Lord Leggatt, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest court of law in the United Kingdom.

<i>Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah</i>

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Yunus Rahmatullah [2012] UKSC 48 is a UK constitutional law case concerning the detention of Yunus Rahmatullah, a Pakistani citizen detained in Iraq, and later Afghanistan, who is alleged to have travelled to Iraq to fight for Al-Qaeda during the Second Iraq War.

<i>Re B</i> (A Child)

Re B (A Child) or In the matter of B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning the habitual residence of a child under English law.

<i>R v Jogee</i> 2016 British landmark legal case on joint enterprise

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.

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords[2017] UKSC 67 is a UK Supreme Court case that reconsidered the test used for determining dishonesty.

In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty. The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.

<i>Begum v Home Secretary</i> 2021 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case

Begum v Home Secretary [2021] UKSC 7 is the short name of three closely connected proceedings considered together in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, R v Special Immigration Appeals Commission; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerning Shamima Begum, a woman born in the United Kingdom who at the age of 15 travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Her intention to return to England in 2019 resulted in a public debate about the handling of returning jihadists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Fordham (judge)</span> High Court judge

Sir Michael John Fordham,, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Fordham, is a judge of the High Court of England and Wales assigned to the King's Bench Division. He was appointed as a Justice of the High Court on 13 January 2020.

<i>Hickey v McGowan & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Hickey v McGowan & ors, [2017] IESC 6 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case concerns child abuse and vicarious liability. The second defendant sexually abused the plaintiff in class, in the presence of the other students. This happened at least once a week. Four boys who witnessed the abuse in the class gave evidence, which was accepted by the High Court. It was determined that there must be a "close connection" between the wrongful act and the actions that one had engaged the offender to perform in order for one to be made liable for the act of another.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2018.

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 2023.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2024.

References

  1. ↑ "Press Summary: FirstPort Property Services Ltd (Appellant) v Settlers Court RTM Company and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 1". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 12 January 2022.
  2. ↑ "Right to Manage: FirstPort Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court RTM Company and others". www.clarkewillmott.com. Clarke Willmott. 4 May 2022.
  3. ↑ "Press Summary: Pwr (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) Akdogan and another (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 2 On appeal from: [2020] EWHC 798 (Admin)". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 26 January 2022.
  4. ↑ March, Samuel (3 February 2022). "Supreme Court dismisses protestors' appeal over PKK flag conviction". ukhumanrightsblog.com. UK Human Rights Blog (1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers).
  5. ↑ "Press Summary: R (on the application of O (a minor, by her litigation friend AO)) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) R (on the application of The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 3 On appeal from: [2021] EWCA Civ 193". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 2 February 2022.
  6. ↑ "Supreme Court rules £1,012 Home Office fee for a child to be registered as a British citizen is lawful". www.ein.org.uk. Electronic Immigration Network. 2 February 2022.
  7. ↑ "Press Summary: Public Prosecutors Office of the Athens Court of Appeal (Appellant) v O'Connor (Respondent) (Northern Ireland) [2022] UKSC 4 On appeal from: [2017] NIQB 77". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 2 February 2022.
  8. ↑ Anosike, Eniyoma (16 May 2022). "Public Prosecutors Office of the Athens Court of Appeal (Appellant) v Connor (AP) (Respondent) (Northern Ireland)". thestudentlawyer.com. The Student Lawyer.
  9. ↑ "Press Summary: Bloomberg LP (Appellant) v ZXC (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 5 On appeal from [2020] EWCA 611". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 16 February 2022.
  10. ↑ Waterson, Jim (16 February 2022). "Bloomberg loses landmark UK supreme court case on privacy". The Guardian.
  11. ↑ "Press Summary: Craig (Appellant) v Her Majesty's Advocate (for the Government of the United States of America) and another (Respondents) (Scotland) [2022] UKSC 6 On appeal from: [2020] HCJAC 22". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 23 February 2022.
  12. ↑ Cowan, David (23 February 2022). "Supreme Court halts James Craig's US fraud case extradition". BBC News.
  13. ↑ "Press Summary: Croydon London Borough Council (Appellant) v Kalonga (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 7 On appeal from: [2021] EWCA Civ 77 (Admin)". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 9 March 2022.
  14. ↑ Heatley, Sarah (13 April 2022). "The impact of Croydon LBC v Kalonga on fixed-termed tenancies". www.propertyweek.com. Property Week.
  15. ↑ "Press Summary: Bott & Co Solicitors Ltd (Appellant) v Ryanair DAC (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 8 On appeal from: [2019] EWCA Civ 143)". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 9 March 2022.
  16. ↑ Moseley, Lucy; Williamson, Annabel (20 April 2022). "What does the recent Bott v Ryanair Supreme Court judgment mean for claims management companies handling Regulation 261 compensation claims?". www.shlegal.com. Stephenson Harwood.
  17. ↑ "Press Summary: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v NCL Investments Ltd and another (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 9 On appeal from: [2020] EWCA Civ 663". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 23 March 2022.
  18. ↑ Robson, Jamie (22 July 2022). "Supreme Court's NCL Investments decision highlights complications of UK tax base". mnetax.com. MNE Tax.
  19. ↑ "Press Summary: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 10 On appeal from: [2019] EWCA Civ 1610". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 27 April 2022.
  20. ↑ "Supreme Court judgment in HMRC v Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd". home.kpmg/uk/en/home.html. KPMG. 3 May 2022.
  21. ↑ "Press Summary: R (on the application of Coughlan) (Appellant) v Minister for the Cabinet Office (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 11 On appeal from: [2020] EWCA Civ 723". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 27 April 2022.
  22. ↑ "Supreme Court rejects appeal over introduction of voter ID pilot schemes in May 2019 local government elections". www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk. Local Government Lawyer. 27 April 2022.
  23. ↑ "Press Summary: Zipvit Ltd (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) (No 2) [2022] UKSC 12 On appeal from: [2018] EWCA Civ 1515 723". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 11 May 2022.
  24. ↑ "Zipvit v HMRC". www.taxjournal.com. Tax Journal. 17 May 2022.
  25. ↑ "Press Summary: R v Maughan (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) [2022] UKSC 13 On appeal from: [2019] NICA 66". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 11 May 2022.
  26. ↑ Tahir, Hassan (14 September 2022). "R v Maughan (Northern Ireland)". www.thestudentlawyer.com. The Student Lawyer.
  27. ↑ "Press Summary: Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Flynn Pharma Ltd and another (Appellants) Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Pfizer Inc and another (Appellants) [2022] UKSC 14 On appeal from: [2020] EWCA Civ 617". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 25 May 2022.
  28. ↑ Clark, Michael (27 May 2022). "Important Supreme Court judgment regarding costs awards against public bodies/regulators". www.clydeco.com. Clyde & Co LLP.
  29. ↑ "Press Summary: SC (Jamaica) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 15 On appeal from: [2017] EWCA Civ 2112". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 15 June 2022.
  30. ↑ Ali Khan, Asad (24 July 2022). "Supreme Court allows Jamaican criminal's appeal". United Kingdom Immigration Law Blog.
  31. ↑ "Press Summary: AIC Ltd (Respondent) v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (Appellant) [2022] UKSC 16 On appeal from: [2020] EWCA 1585". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 15 June 2022.
  32. ↑ Brown, Matthew (3 August 2022). "British Virgin Islands: AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority Of Nigeria [2022] UKSC 16: Reconsidering An Order Before It Is Sealed". www.mondaw.com. Totola: Mondaq.
  33. ↑ "Press Summary: In the matter of H-W (Children) In the matter of H-W (Children) (No 2) [2022] UKSC 17 On appeal from: [2021] EWCA Civ 1451". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 15 June 2022. UKOpenGovernmentLicence.svg Text was copied from this source, which is available under an Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown copyright.
  34. ↑ Cross, Emma (16 June 2022). "Supreme Court – Re H-W (Children): Proportionality of Care Orders". www.magdalenchambers.co.uk. Magdalen Chambers.
  35. ↑ "Press Summary: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd (Appellant) v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd (Respondent) Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd (Appellant) v Ashloch Ltd and AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd (Respondents) On Tower UK Ltd (formerly known as Arqiva Services Ltd) (Appellant) v AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 18 On appeals from: [2019] EWCA Civ 1755; [2021] EWCA Civ 90 and [2020] UKUT 0195 (Lands Chamber)". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 22 June 2022.
  36. ↑ "UK Supreme Court widens Electronic Communications Code rights for operators". Osborne Clarke. 29 July 2022.
  37. ↑ "Press Summary: Hastings (Appellant) v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd and another (Respondents) (Scotland) [2022] UKSC 19 On appeal from: [2021] CSIH 6". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 29 June 2022.
  38. ↑ Leadley, John; Corby, Kate; Redmond, Joanne; Gest, Lauren (8 July 2022). "UK Supreme Court rules no entitlement for consumers to an "absolute level of safety" in product liability case". Global Compliance News.
  39. ↑ "Basfar (Respondent) v Wong (Appellant) [2022] UKSC 20 On appeal from: UKEAT/223/19/BA". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 6 July 2022.
  40. ↑ Siddique, Haroon; Wintour, Patrick (6 July 2022). "Diplomats who exploit domestic staff cannot rely on immunity, says UK supreme court". The Guardian .
  41. ↑ "Press Summary: Harpur Trust (Appellant) v Brazel (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 21 On appeal from: [2019] EWCA Civ 1402". www.supremecourt.uk (The Supreme Court). The Supreme Court. 20 July 2022.
  42. ↑ "Harpur Trust vs Brazel Holiday Pay: What is the impact of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Harpur Trust v Brazel case?". PwC.
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.