Civil appeals to the Supreme Court

STOP PRESS—Supreme Court Practice Directions: The Supreme Court has published new Practice Directions (SCR PDs) which apply to appeals commenced on or after 2 December 2024. A copy of the new SCR PDs can be found here.

This overview will be updated shortly to take account of the new PDs.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance and plays an important role in the development of United Kingdom law. It hears appeals on arguable points of law from the civil division of the Court of Appeal and, in some very limited cases, the High Court.

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules, the Supreme Court Rules (referred to in this overview as 'SCR') and its own set of Practice Directions (referred to in this overview as ‘SCR PDs’). These are entirely separate to the Civil Procedure Rules, which govern procedure in the County Courts, High Court and Court of Appeal.

The SCR were enacted by the Supreme Court Rules 2024, SI 2024/949, which revoke

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—5 December 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes breaking news of the new MoJ personal injury discount rate, an occupier’s liability case concerning a professional motorcycle racer injured at a championship test day and a procedural decision concerning emailing a claim form to the incorrect court office. We also include our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Strong doubt cast on a shareholder’s entitlement to see a company’s privileged documents (Aabar Holdings S.A.R.L v Glencore plc)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The so-called ‘shareholder rule’ (‘the Rule’) is generally understood to mean that legal professional privilege cannot be maintained by a company in relation to documents of a privileged nature against one of its shareholders, except where the privileged documents were created for the purpose of hostile litigation involving the shareholder. In a detailed analysis of many authorities on this point, and of parties in apparently analogous relationships, Mr Justice Picken, sitting in the Commercial Court, has held that the Rule is unjustifiable and should no longer be applied. Its existence did not result from a shareholder having a proprietary interest in the assets of a company in which the shareholder held shares. Nor was the Rule underpinned by the notion of the company and its shareholders having a joint interest in the subject matter of the privileged documents. The concept of joint interest privilege as a freestanding or standalone species of privilege was not supported by case law and would be entirely dependent on the circumstances. Instead, it was ‘an umbrella term’ describing different situations where one party was unable to assert privilege against another party. Written by the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution team.

Ministry of Justice sets new personal injury discount rate at positive 0.5%

The Lord Chancellor, Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, has announced a new personal injury discount rate of positive 0.5% for England and Wales, to be effective from 11 January 2025. This new rate will be applied when calculating lump sum compensation payments for future financial losses in personal injury cases. The Lord Chancellor concluded that it would be inappropriate to adopt a dual or multiple rate at this review and that the rate should be set at a single rate of positive 0.5%. This decision follows a comprehensive review process under the Damages Act 1996, which included two Calls for Evidence, consultation with statutory consultees and evidence from an independent expert panel. A Statutory Instrument will be laid in Parliament to implement this change. A full statement of reasons has been made available.

UT considers taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity and third party disclosure request (HMRC v The Taxpayer and Others)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected a taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity, following the taxpayer's decision to withdraw their substantive appeal with the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The UT further granted a third party limited access to the FTT’s previous case management decision. The UT’s decision emphasises the importance placed on open justice and highlights the court and tribunals’ reluctance to permit anonymity in litigation. Written by Helen McGhee, Partner, and Megan Durnford, Associate, at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News