The Supreme Court has unanimously held in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16 that the Minister of Health for Northern Ireland would not be acting incompatibly with article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by issuing a revised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Code of Practice under section 288(4) of the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (MCA(NI) 2016), and that it is therefore within his competence to issue the revised Code. In reaching its decision, the Court overruled Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19. Dr Lucy Series, associate professor at the University of Bristol, provides commentary on the judgment.

On 13 November 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Unite the Union and another v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus. In a unanimous decision delivered by Lord Leggatt and Lady Simler in a joint judgment, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal decision and dismissed the appeal from Nexus seeking rectification of a legally unenforceable collective agreement in relation to pay. However, unlike the Court of Appeal, which held that collective agreements cannot be rectified as they are legally unenforceable, the Supreme Court recognised that such agreements incorporated into employment contracts can be rectified as doing so would affect legal rights or obligations between employees and employers. While this was the position in this case, and rectification would have indirectly affected the employer and relevant employees, the claim for rectification from an employer needs to be brought against affected employees rather than the unions, and the court reasoned that making an order altering the legal rights of employees without giving them the opportunity to be heard would be contrary to the principles of procedural justice. The court also confirmed that although employment tribunals cannot make an order for rectification, where there is a relevant mistake, it can treat the document as having been rectified for the purpose of determining the parties’ legal rights, as is the approach in civil courts. Nicholas Chronias, Partner at DAC Beachcroft LLP, David Reade KC and Joseph Bryan, barristers at Littleton Chambers, and Jonathan Tuck, Partner at Baker McKenzie comment on the judgment.

Property Disputes analysis: The Supreme Court has held that failure by an RTM company to serve a qualifying tenant with a notice of invitation to participate did not invalidate its right to manage claim. The court distinguished substantive conditions governing entitlement under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 from procedural requirements governing the acquisition process, holding that the latter are not ordinarily grounds for a landlord’s counter-notice. The decision significantly restricts procedural objections to RTM claims, while leaving scope for exceptions where the objector is sufficiently connected with, or prejudiced by, the procedural failure. Its reasoning may also affect challenges under analogous statutory property regimes, including collective enfranchisement. Produced in partnership with Sophie Gibson, junior counsel for the respondent, of Landmark Chambers.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal concerning vicarious liability by the Crown for alleged delicts (torts) committed by a Scottish sheriff, ruling that the relationship between sheriffs and the Scottish Government is not akin to employment and that section 2(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 refers to the Sovereign in official capacity. The judgment confirms the Inner House decision that stage 1 of the vicarious liability test fails because the Scottish Government exercises no control over sheriffs' judicial functions, with the Supreme Court emphasising that judicial independence, enshrined in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, constitutes a constitutional principle preventing governmental interference with judicial decision-making. Helena Ifeka, barrister at Cloisters Chambers, discusses the implications of the judgment, and highlights aspects of the decision which are also likely to have an impact outside of employment law.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal in QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKSC 26, holding that the right to a fair hearing, guaranteed by article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), applies to the imposition review. The Home Secretary must therefore provide the respondent (QX) with article 6(1) compliant disclosure of the evidence relied on in support of the allegation, that the respondent had travelled to Syria and was, or had been, aligned with an al-Qaeda aligned group, in both the imposition review and the obligations review. Carl Gardner, Public Law PSL at LexisNexis comments on the judgment.

The Supreme Court has dismissed RusChemAlliance’s (RCA) appeal and has upheld the anti-suit injunction (ASI) granted by the Court of Appeal on 29 January 2024. The injunction prevents RCA from continuing its claim against UniCredit in Russia. The Supreme Court gave the decision before releasing the judgment as parallel arbitration proceedings in Russia were adjourned until 6 May 2024 allowing the UK Supreme Court time to give its decision. The full judgment will follow in due course. Matthew Weiniger KC, partner and global chair of International Arbitration at Linklaters and Karris Graham-Moore, International Arbitration Managing Associate at Linklaters and Jennifer Haywood, Serle Court, discuss the implications of the decision.

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in James Hugh Allister and others (First Appellants) and Clifford Peeples (Second Appellant) v the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and others (Respondents). The proceedings challenged the lawfulness of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement (the Protocol), which was given effect under section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018). The three grounds of the appeal were unanimously dismissed. Sir Jonathan Jones KC (Hon) at Linklaters and Professor Colin Murray of Newcastle Law School comment on the decision.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal, which concerned the practice of the Ministry of Justice’s Offender Recall Unit (ORU) regarding the revocation of a prisoner’s licence and their recall to prison. The appellant argued that the ORUs’ practices breached article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (concerning discrimination), taken together with article 5 ECHR (concerning the right to liberty). The Supreme Court considered the approach to an article 14 claim as well as the sentencing regimes and statutory provisions for determinate custodial sentences (DCS), indeterminate custodial sentences (ICS), extended custodial sentences (ECS), mandatory and discretionary life sentences. The Supreme Court held that the sentencing regime that applies to DCS prisoners are not comparable to the sentencing regimes of ECS and ICS prisoners, and that the ORU and Parole Commissioners have the discretion to strike a balance between the interests of public protection and the interests of the individual prisoner concerned.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland (PPSNI), holding that although Article 158A of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 permits magistrates’ courts to vary a sentence by addition in appropriate cases, the interests of justice does not permit reopening the respondent’s sentence nearly two years after it was imposed. The case concerned an attempt to add a compensation order following a guilty plea to criminal damage. The Court held that the significant delay was fatal to the application and that the variation order should remain quashed. In clarifying the scope of Article 158A, the Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s unduly narrow interpretation of the power to vary but nonetheless upheld its ultimate conclusion. The decision provides important guidance on the proper limits of sentence reconsideration powers in Northern Ireland and by parity of reasoning, in England and Wales.

On 29 January 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in The Father v Worcestershire County Council, dismissing the father's appeal against the care order placing his children in foster care. The father had sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the care order was made without jurisdiction and that his children were unlawfully detained. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his application, stating that the correct process was to challenge the care order through the procedures outlined in the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) and the Family Procedure Rules, rather than through habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasising that the children were not detained but living in a domestic setting typical for their age. The judgment underscores the importance of following established legal procedures for challenging care orders, and highlights the limited scope of habeas corpus in such family law matters. Mark Blundell, Barrister at 1 GC Family Law, comments on the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed appeals brought by two appellants convicted of rape and other sexual offences, challenging the exclusion of evidence that might have assisted their defences. The key issue was whether the Scottish courts’ approach to the admission of evidence concerning the complainer’s credibility or reliability in trials for sexual offences was liable to infringe the defendant’s rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Supreme Court found that the Scottish courts should modify their approach to the admission of evidence in such cases as it was liable to result in violations of the rights of the accused under Article 6 ECHR. However, on the facts, the Supreme Court found that no such violation had occurred in this case and both appellants had received a fair trial, hence the appeals were dismissed. Lord Reed gave the judgment with which the other members of the court agreed. The Lexis+® UK Public Law team comments on the judgment.

The Supreme Court has dismissed Amazon’s appeal, finding that its US website targeted UK consumers by displaying the goods on its US website and showing them as available for shipment to the UK, which in turn infringed Lifestyle’s UK and EU trade marks. As a result, the injunction and order relating to an enquiry as to damages made by the Court of Appeal remain in place. Gina Lodge, partner at Temple Bright comments on the Supreme Court’s judgment highlighting the impact on rightsholders, who will be reassured by the decision.