The Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3. The case concerned the correct approach for dealing with permission applications under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984). The court concluded, by a majority of three to two, that a party served with an order made without notice to them has the right to apply to have the order set aside on the ground that the test for granting permission under section 13 of the MFPA 1984 is not met, clarifying that the threshold for setting aside permission is lower than the Court of Appeal held in its ruling. Tom Brownrigg, partner at Goodman Ray, discusses the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent); Polmear and another (Appellants) v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (Respondent); Purchase (Appellant) v Ahmed (Respondent) [2024] UKSC 1. The case concerned whether an individual can make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence. The court concluded, by a majority of six to one, that while doctors owe a duty of care to protect the health of their patients, they do not owe a duty of care to members of the patient’s close family to protect them against the risk of illness from the experience of witnessing the death or medical crisis of their relative from a condition which the doctor has negligently failed to diagnose or treat. The Court of Appeal’s decision was therefore upheld. Charles Bagot KC, Barrister at Gatehouse Law, Esther Gamble, Barrister at No5 Chambers and Tom Westwell, Barrister at Devereux Chambers discuss the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the police cannot be held liable for ‘making matters worse’. Ella Davis, barrister at Deka Chambers, who acted on behalf of the respondent in this case, and Nicholas Bowen KC,barrister at Doughty Street who acted on behalf of the appellants, comments on the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appellants’ appeal and allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal in UniCredit Bank GmbH, London Branch v Constitution Aircraft Leasing (Ireland) 3 Ltd and another; UniCredit Bank GmbH, London Branch v Celestial Aviation Services Ltd [2026] UKSC 10, holding that regulation 28(3)(c) of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/855 prohibited the respondent from making payments under the letters of credit until UK licences were obtained, meaning its payment obligation and the accrual of statutory interest were suspended. The court also held that section 44 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018) provides a defence in civil proceedings, and would have protected the respondent against liability for a debt, interest and associated costs where it acted in the reasonable belief that its conduct complied with the Regulations, emphasising the public purpose of sanctions to put pressure on Russia by disrupting strategic industries such as aviation.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania. The Supreme Court has held that to establish that a requested person would be entitled to a retrial or, on appeal, to a review amounting to a retrial on their return to the requesting state, the entitlement must not depend on any contingency. However, the Court also said that purely procedural matters would not affect a requested persons entitlement. Stefan Hyman, barrister at 9BR Chambers, and counsel for the Respondents comments on the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that a creditor is put on inquiry in any non-commercial hybrid transaction where, on the face of the transaction, there is a more than de minimis (ie trivial) element of borrowing that serves to discharge the debts of one of the borrowers and so might not be to the financial advantage of the other. Joanne Wicks KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers, and Tricia Hemans, barrister at Falcon Chambers, discuss the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by Orion Shipping and Trading LLC, holding that clause 14 of the 2012 Norwegian Saleform (NSF) entitles buyers to recover loss of bargain damages where they terminate a contract following a delay in delivery caused by the sellers’ proven negligence. The Court held that the wording of clause 14, read in its contractual and commercial context, encompasses loss of bargain damages and that neither the ‘causation principle’ nor the ‘clear words principle’ required a different interpretation. Iain Sharp, partner, and Vassilis Mavrakis, legal director, both at Hill Dickinson, provide commentary on the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by a Slovakian national resident in England, concerning entitlement to the child element of Universal Credit in circumstances where the claimant’s child resided outside the United Kingdom. The Court held that the child element of universal credit (‘UC’) is not a ‘family benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. Sarah Crowe, solicitor at Leigh Day representing the appellant, discusses the implications of the judgment, highlighting that the decision confirms that EU nationals living in the UK whose children remain in an EU Member State cannot claim the child element of Universal Credit for those children, even if they are dependent on them, and that questions about the Supreme Court’s power to refer to the CJEU under the Withdrawal Agreement will need to be resolved in a future case.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6, holding Ms Armstead entitled to damages for the clause 16 sum. It was held that the amount of a contractual liability that the claimant owes to a third party, when the contractual liability results from the defendant negligently damaging the claimant’s property, is not pure economic loss, and can be recovered in the tort of negligence. Quentin Tannock and Ben Smiley, legal representatives in the case, and Ieuan Poole, Associate at DAC Beachcroft, comment on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that a court should exercise its discretion under CPR 19.23(1)(a) to disapply a group litigation order (GLO) test case judgment where exceptional circumstances make it unjust to determine claims on the basis of legal reasoning subsequently shown to be wrong. The court also held that one of the test cases (the Prudential test case) did not determine the limitation issue as a common GLO issue, with the result that the appellants’ claims fell to be determined in accordance with the law as subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court. Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer, and David O’Brien, partner, both at Penningtons Manches Cooper provide commentary on the judgment..

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal of Kession Capital Ltd, holding that dealing with retail clients constitutes a distinct ‘part’ of a financial services business under section 39(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), with the result that an authorised person is not responsible for its appointed representative’s dealings with retail clients where those activities fall outside the scope of its permission. The court held that imposing liability in such circumstances would undermine the effectiveness and coherence of the regulatory regime of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Nick Price, partner at Osborne Clarke, provides commentary on the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Francesco Costa, holding that the good-faith requirement under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) requires a director not only to form their business judgment in good faith but also to act in good faith towards the company when implementing it. A director who covertly pursues a strategy contrary to that resolved upon by the board as a whole may breach CA 2006, s 172. The court further held that, where a fiduciary duty of loyalty exists, the duty itself, rather than the objective dishonesty test in Ivey v Genting, provides the relevant analytical framework. The Court of Appeal’s unconditional buy-out order under CA 2006, s 996 was upheld. David Lascelles, barrister at Littleton Chambers, provides commentary on the judgment.