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.
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.
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 | ||||||||||
Case name | Citation | Argued | Decided | Phillips | Hope | Saville | Rodger | Walker | Hale | Brown | Mance | Collins | Kerr | Clarke | Dyson |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HM Treasury v Al-Ghabra [1] | [2010] UKSC 1 | 5 and 22 October 2009 | 27 January | ||||||||||||
HM Treasury v Ahmed [1] | [2010] UKSC 2 | 5-8 October 2009 | 27 January | ||||||||||||
Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner | [2010] UKSC 3 | 17 November 2009 | 27 January | ||||||||||||
Grays Timber Products Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs | [2010] UKSC 4 | 14-15 December 2009 | 3 February | ||||||||||||
HM Treasury v Ahmed (No.2) [1] | [2010] UKSC 5 | 28 January | 4 February | ||||||||||||
Allison v HM Advocate | [2010] UKSC 6 | 8 December 2009 | 10 February | ||||||||||||
McInnes v HM Advocate | [2010] UKSC 7 | 8-9 December 2009 | 10 February | ||||||||||||
Tomlinson v Birmingham CC | [2010] UKSC 8 | 23-24 November 2009 | 17 February | ||||||||||||
Norris v USA [2] | [2010] UKSC 9 | 30 November - 1 December 2009 | 24 February | ||||||||||||
Martin v HM Advocate | [2010] UKSC 10 | 8-10 December 2009 | 3 March | ||||||||||||
R (Lewis) v Redcar & Cleveland BC | [2010] UKSC 11 | 18-20 January | 3 March | ||||||||||||
Re W (Children) | [2010] UKSC 12 | 1-2 March | 3 March | ||||||||||||
Agbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje | [2010] UKSC 13 | 3-4 November 2009 | 10 March | ||||||||||||
RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH | [2010] UKSC 14 | 2-3 November 2009 | 10 March | ||||||||||||
R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Home Secretary | [2010] UKSC 15 | 13-14 January | 17 March | ||||||||||||
British Airways v Williams | [2010] UKSC 16 | 24-25 February | 24 March | ||||||||||||
R (F) v Home Secretary | [2010] UKSC 17 | 3-4 February | 21 April | ||||||||||||
Farstad Supply v Enviroco | [2010] UKSC 18 | 9–10 March | 5 May | ||||||||||||
Inveresk plc v Tullis Russell Papermakers | [2010] UKSC 19 | 1–2 March | 5 May | ||||||||||||
R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton CC | [2010] UKSC 20 | 1–2 February | 12 May | ||||||||||||
ZN (Afghanistan) v Entry Clearance Officer | [2010] UKSC 21 | 15 February | 12 May | ||||||||||||
Roberts v Gill & Co | [2010] UKSC 22 | 22–23 February | 19 May | ||||||||||||
OB v Aventis Pasteur SA | [2010] UKSC 23 | 15 April | 26 May | ||||||||||||
Home Secretary v AP [1] | [2010] UKSC 24 | 5 May | 16 June | ||||||||||||
MS (Palestinian Territories) v Home Secretary | [2010] UKSC 25 | 26–27 April | 16 June | ||||||||||||
Home Secretary v AP [1] | [2010] UKSC 26 | 5 May | 23 June | ||||||||||||
JR17 (Judicial Review App.) | [2010] UKSC 27 | 19–20 April | 23 June | ||||||||||||
Austin v Southwark LBC | [2010] UKSC 28 | 21–22 April | 23 June | ||||||||||||
R(Smith) v Defence Secretary [2] [3] | [2010] UKSC 29 | 15–17 March | 30 June | ||||||||||||
R (Noone) v Drake Hall Prison [4] | [2010] UKSC 30 | 11–12 May | 30 June | ||||||||||||
HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Home Secretary | [2010] UKSC 31 | 10-12 May | 7 July | ||||||||||||
Southern Pacific Loans v Walker | [2010] UKSC 32 | 13 May | 7 July | ||||||||||||
A v Essex CC [5] | [2010] UKSC 33 | 24-25 March | 14 July | ||||||||||||
O'Brien v MOJ | [2010] UKSC 34 | 14-15 June | 28 July | ||||||||||||
Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd v Bocardo SA | [2010] UKSC 35 | 22-24 June | 28 July | ||||||||||||
R (ZO (Somalia)) v Home Secretary | [2010] UKSC 36 | 17-18 May | 28 July | ||||||||||||
Morrison Sports v Scottish Power | [2010] UKSC 37 | 16 June | 28 July | ||||||||||||
RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH (No. 2) [6] | [2010] UKSC 38 | 2–3 December 2009 | 21 July | ||||||||||||
R v Rollins [1] [4] | [2010] UKSC 39 | 12-13 July | 28 July | ||||||||||||
R (Electoral Commission) v Westminster Magistrates' Court [1] | [2010] UKSC 40 | 8-9 June | 29 July | ||||||||||||
Gisda Cyf v Barratt | [2010] UKSC 41 | 19 July | 13 October | ||||||||||||
Radmacher v Granatino [2] | [2010] UKSC 42 | 22-23 March | 20 October | ||||||||||||
Cadder v HM Advocate [1] | [2010] UKSC 43 | 24–26 May | 26 October | ||||||||||||
Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading v TMT Asia [1] | [2010] UKSC 44 | 14-15 July | 27 October | ||||||||||||
Manchester CC v Pinnock [2] [7] | [2010] UKSC 45 | 5-8 July | 3 November | ||||||||||||
Dallah Real Estate & Tourism v Pakistan | [2010] UKSC 46 | 28-30 June | 3 November | ||||||||||||
Multi-Link Leisure v North Lanarkshire Council | [2010] UKSC 47 | 12 October | 17 November | ||||||||||||
R v Maxwell | [2010] UKSC 48 | 19-20 July | 17 November | ||||||||||||
MA (Somalia) v Home Secretary | [2010] UKSC 49 | 11 October | 24 November | ||||||||||||
RBS v Wilson | [2010] UKSC 50 | 13-14 October | 24 November | ||||||||||||
Holland v Revenue and Customs Commissioners | [2010] UKSC 51 | 21-22 July | 24 November | ||||||||||||
R v Chaytor [2] | [2010] UKSC 52 | 18-19 October | 1 December | ||||||||||||
Spiller v Joseph | [2010] UKSC 53 | 26-27 July | 1 December | ||||||||||||
R (Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | [2010] UKSC 54 | 25 October | 8 December | ||||||||||||
Progress Property v Moorgarth Group | [2010] UKSC 55 | 5 October | 8 December | ||||||||||||
Principal Reporter v K | [2010] UKSC 56 | 20-21 October | 15 December | ||||||||||||
R (Edwards) v Environment Agency | [2010] UKSC 57 | 11 November | 15 December | ||||||||||||
HM Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd | [2010] UKSC 58 | 2-4 November | 15 December | ||||||||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.