The Supreme Court has found that a claimant under section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 can only recover damages (other than merely nominal damages) for financial loss actually suffered, and compensation for injury to feelings can only be recovered if such injury is consequent on financial loss caused by a maliciously false statement. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Ms Cannell and LCA Jobs Ltd’s appeal, holding that the original claimant, Fiona George could not recover damages. Alex Vakil, partner at RPC, comments on the judgment.

Personal Injury analysis: The Supreme Court has held that a woman who had become infertile as a result of a hospital's negligence could recover damages to cover the cost not only of surrogacy arrangements using her own eggs, which had been frozen before her infertility, but also the cost of arrangements using donor eggs and the cost of commercial surrogacy arrangements in a country where that was not unlawful. Jake Richards, barrister at 9 Gough Square, examines the court's decision.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the appellants, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal that where a cause of action accrues at, or on the expiry of, midnight, the day immediately following should be included for the purposes of calculating the limitation period. As a result, the appellants’ claim, which concerned allegations of negligence, breach of trust and breach of contract, was brought out of time and was therefore statute-barred. Chris Snell, barrister at New Square Chambers, comments on the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The UK Supreme Court has announced that Lord Stephens of Creevyloughgare will retire on 7 April 2027 as a Justice of the Supreme Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He has served on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council since 15 November 2017 and on the Supreme Court since 1 October 2020. Lord Stephens said it had been an honour to serve the citizens of the UK and the Privy Council jurisdictions in upholding the rule of law, and that he would continue his work over the next 11 months. An independent Selection Commission is expected to be convened by the Lord Chancellor to appoint his successor.

Property analysis: Can noise itself be part of the character of a locality? The Supreme Court is set to consider this issue and whether the law recognises an easement of noise.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The Supreme Court dismissed the pursuer’s appeal against the decision that a metal-on-metal hip prosthesis which had required early revision was defective for the purposes of a claim for personal injuries under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987). The case was the first time that the Supreme Court had considered the CPA 1987. The court summarised the principles to be applied when considering ‘defect’ within the CPA 1987. Those principles reflected the analysis which has recently been adopted in Wilkes v DePuy and Gee v DePuy. The appellant faced insurmountable hurdles on appeal in attempting to circumvent findings of fact at first instance after a lengthy trial with expert evidence from several specialties. This confirms that appeals which seek to challenge facts rather than genuine issues of law are rarely successful. Written by Alexander Antelme QC and David Myhill of Crown Office Chambers.

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that decisions on Public Interest Immunity (PII) involve a substantive question of law requiring courts to determine where the overall public interest lies, rather than applying ordinary public law review standards. In a case concerning the inquest into the 1994 death of Liam Paul Thompson in Belfast, the Court ruled that neither of two gists of sensitive information should be disclosed. It found that the Coroner erred by failing to apply the correct balancing test, disregarding the Secretary of State’s assessment of national security risks, and omitting key procedural steps. The judgment emphasises that appellate courts must form their own view on disclosure and conduct the Wiley PII balancing exercise. The appeal was allowed, with the Supreme Court noting that a statutory inquiry or review by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery would be more appropriate given the statutory deadline and security concerns. Ian Gascoigne comments on the public interest immunity aspect at the core of the appeal.

Banking & Finance analysis: Tim Polli of Tanfield Chambers examines the Supreme Court’s use in an unjust enrichment case of the remedy of subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien in Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal brought by G4S Health Services (UK) Limited, Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Devon County Council, holding that the claimant was barred by the doctrine of illegality from bringing civil proceedings in negligence to recover compensation for the consequences of the killings. Christopher Johnson, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, provides commentary on the judgment.

The Supreme Court of the UK has issued a judgment clarifying the Special Immigration Appeals Commission’s (SIAC) role in citizenship deprivation and entry clearance appeals involving national security. The Court ruled that, while SIAC can conduct full merits reviews and consider new evidence, it must apply public law principles when reviewing the Home Secretary’s national security assessments. The judgment establishes that risks to national security need not be proved on the balance of probabilities, and that cumulative intelligence can provide reasonable grounds for risk assessment. The ruling maintains the Home Secretary’s primary decision-making role in national security matters while confirming SIAC’s oversight function. Alex Papasotiriou, barrister at Richmond Chambers, welcomed the ability to consider new evidence but noted the limited powers to reconsider the case that “it is difficult see how that secures procedural fairness.” Eric Fripp, barrister at The 36 Group, said the outcome was “unsurprising” and reflects the evaluative nature of national security risk, despite SIAC being a statutory appellate body.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal in Wathen-Fayed v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It held that the term ‘crematorium’ in section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 (CA 1902) refers specifically to a ‘building fitted with appliances for the purpose of burning human remains’ (ie the crematory building). Accordingly, the distance requirements in CA 1902, s 5 must be measured from the building housing the crematory itself. Peter Goately KC and Sioned Davies, barristers at No5 Barristers’ Chambers, provide commentary on the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal and allowed the cross appeal in Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV (previously known as Glencore Agriculture BV) [2024] UKSC 14 and the Awards have been remitted to the Appeal Board for reconsideration. Lord Hamblen gave the judgment with which all the other Justices agreed, holding that damages should be awarded based on the value of goods rather that the costs of varied contracts. Chirag Karia KC, Barrister at Quadrant Chambers and counsel for Sharp Corp Ltd, and Varun Zaiwalla, Barrister at Zaiwalla & Co comment on the Supreme Court’s judgment.