The Supreme Court in R (Quaye) v Secretary of State for Justice has unanimously held that sections 27A and 27B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (CSA 1997) are compatible with Articles 5, 7 and 14 (read with Article 5) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The provisions restrict minimum term reviews to offenders who were under 18 when sentenced to detention during His Majesty’s pleasure (DHMP). The court held that the restrictions do not involve arbitrary or unlawful detention, impose a heavier penalty or give rise to unjustified differential treatment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal in part and allowed it in part in C G Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, holding that regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations), SI 2017/1012, applies to later stages of the planning process such as the discharge of conditions, but allowing the appeal on the separate issue that national planning policy cannot override rights already conferred by outline planning permission. Matt Nixon, legal director, at Shoosmiths, Hannah Taylor, barrister, at Cornerstone Barristers and Cathryn Tracey, partner, and Maelor James, associate, at Burges Salmon, provide commentary on the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in Augustine v Data Cars Ltd, holding that, for the protection against less favourable treatment under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (PTW Regs 2000), SI 2000/1551 to apply, a worker’s part-time status need not be the sole ground or reason for the treatment. It is sufficient for part-time status to have had a significant or substantial influence on, or to have been an effective cause of the less favourable treatment. The court held that the existence of other causes of the treatment may be relevant to justification or compensation but does not prevent the right under PTW Regs 2000, reg 5(1) from arising.

Local Government analysis: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the provision of non-denominational Christian religious education and collective worship in a Northern Ireland primary school contravened the human rights of a child who attended the school and her father, who objected to the Christian education and collective worship being provided at the school. In doing so the Supreme Court overturned the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s judgment, and restored the Northern Ireland High Court’s declaration that the child (known as JR87) and her father’s rights under Article 2 of Protocol 1 (‘A2P1’), read with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been breached. The Supreme Court’s judgment has significant ramifications for the provision of religious education and practices in schools. In particular there is likely to be a breach of A2P1 when read with Article 9 in circumstances where religious education and practices are conveyed in a manner which is not objective, critical and pluralistic, even when there is an unfettered right for parents to withdraw their children from those religious education or practices. Written by Jake Thorold, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in the two linked appeals of In the matter of an application by RM (a person under disability) by SM, his father and next friend for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) and In the matter of an application by RM (a person under disability) by SM, his father and next friend for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) No 2 [2024] UKSC 7. The case concerned RM, a restricted patient in hospital, who had been granted long term leave. His application for discharge was denied by the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland and the Mental Health Review Tribunal. On appeal, this decision was overturned by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Tribunal was right to refuse discharge and that RM’s continued detention in hospital was lawful as statutory conditions under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (SI 1986/595 (NI 4)) were met. Charles Foster, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, and Tim Spencer-Lane, mental capacity lawyer, comment on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed HMRC’s appeal, holding that approximately £28 million in redress payments made by ScottishPower to customers and charities under regulatory settlement agreements were not deductible when calculating trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The court held that the payments, made to avoid significant penalties arising from breaches of statutory obligations and licence conditions, were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade under section 54(1)(a) of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009). It rejected the Court of Appeal’s characterisation of the non-deductibility of penalties as a judge-made rule, holding that the payments were sufficiently similar to penalties to be non-deductible and that payments to customers could not be distinguished from the other payments under the overall settlement arrangements. The Supreme Court restored the Upper Tribunal’s decision. As well as summarising the decision, this News Analysis contains commentary from Sam Wardleworth, legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, holding that the appellant’s rejection of the respondent’s offer of non-contractual performance did not constitute a failure to exercise reasonable endeavours. The Supreme Court has noted therefore, that the reasonable endeavours proviso did not prevent the appellant from relying on the force majeure clause. Kaity Crowe, pupil at The 36 Group, and Paul Schwartfeger, barrister at The 36 Group, comment on the impact and implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has dismissed all four grounds of appeal in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd, holding that the retrospective limitation period under section 135(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022), applies not only to claims brought directly under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972), but also to claims that are dependent on the limitation period in DPA 1972, s1—even if they are not brought under that section. It also found that repair costs incurred by a claimant voluntarily may be recoverable in tort. Mathias Cheung, barrister at Atkin Chambers, discusses the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeals brought by ABJ and BDN, holding that section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) is compatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court held that the offence does not amount to a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and that, where its statutory ingredients are proved, a conviction will not breach defendants ECHR rights. The trial court need not carry out a separate assessment of whether conviction would be a proportionate interference with the defendant’s freedom of expression. Dr Lewis Graham, Lecturer in human rights law at the University of Manchester, provides commentary on the judgement.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Forthwell Ltd’s appeal against Pontegadea UK Ltd concerning damages for lost trading profits at the Rogano restaurant in Glasgow. The Court held that Forthwell, the tenant of the premises, could not recover losses suffered by Lynnet Leisure (Rogano) Ltd, its wholly owned subsidiary and the restaurant operator. It rejected Forthwell’s proposed exception to the usual rule that a contracting party may recover only its own loss, holding that it did not form part of Scots law. The Court confirmed that the established Albazero exception is part of Scots law, but did not decide whether a broader transferred-loss exception applies in either Scotland or England and Wales.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Mr and Mrs Darwall’s appeal, holding that the interpretation of section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (DCA 1985), granting the public a right of access, extends to wild camping as a form of open-air recreation. Hannah Brown, senior solicitor and Matthew McFeeley, partner, at Richard Buxton Solicitors, and Rosie Brain, solicitor at Clarke Willmott, discuss the implications of the judgment.

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ’sex' in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) refer to biological sex rather than ’certificated sex'. the court held that individuals with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC) do not fall within their acquired gender's definition under EqA 2010. The judgment clarifies that trans people remain protected from discrimination through gender reassignment provisions and can claim sex discrimination if perceived as their acquired gender. The court determined a biological interpretation was necessary for coherent application of EqA 2010 provisions across areas including single-sex spaces, sports participation and pregnancy rights. Dr Michael Foran and Joanne Moseley comment on the implications of the judgment.