Tax analysis: In Hotel La Tour, the Supreme Court decided that Hotel La Tour (HLT) was not entitled to recover VAT on transaction costs, finding in favour of HMRC in this landmark decision.

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that a collateral warranty does not constitute a ‘construction contract’ for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) and thus that it does not provide the right to statutory adjudication. In passing judgement, the Supreme Court considered the meaning of an agreement ‘for....construction operations’, as per HGCRA 1996, s 104(1) and whether the collateral warranty in this case was such an agreement construed with regards to it being an agreement for the carrying out of construction operations. Barry Hembling, Partner at Watson Farley & Williams, who acted for the respondent in this case, comments on the implications of the judgement.

Construction analysis: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court unanimously found that collateral warranties are in most cases unlikely to be ‘construction contracts’ within the meaning of section 104 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). The court found that a collateral warranty would only be a construction contract where it contained an obligation to carry out construction operations which was ‘separate or distinct’ from the granter’s obligation to do so under the building contract (or other appointment) to which the warranty related,rather than replicating the undertakings already given in the building contract.

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber was in breach of his fiduciary duties when he effected the 2016 transfer of 891,761 shares from MBI International & Partners Inc to JJW Guernsey after the company had entered liquidation. Rejecting arguments that the company suffered no loss due to unpaid vendor’s liens, the Supreme Court ruled that the shares were not subject to such liens and that the loss should be assessed at their value at the date of the breach. Restoring the trial judge’s approach, the Supreme Court reinstated the order for equitable compensation of €67,123,403.36, emphasising that fiduciaries cannot rely on later events to escape liability without clear proof of causation.

Tax analysis: In Dolphin Drilling Ltd, the taxpayer chartered a vessel from an associated foreign company in order to provide support services to an oil driller in the North Sea. The vessel contained accommodation for the offshore oil workers. The taxpayer sought to deduct the hire costs of the vessel from its profits for corporation tax purposes, but HMRC maintained that there was a cap on deductions, pursuant to provisions in Part 8ZA of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010). The issue was whether the accommodation on the vessel was incidental to other uses to which the vessel was likely to be put. The Supreme Court held that it was not as the accommodation served an independent purpose which meant that it was not incidental to, in the sense of arising out of, any other use. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister, Temple Tax Chambers.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in Brown v Ridley, holding that, as properly construed, the words of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) meant that any ten-year period of reasonable belief of ownership within the period of adverse possession was sufficient, rather than it having to be the ten years prior to the date of the application. Amanda Eilledge, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers, discusses the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeals in The Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and another; Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd and another [2026] UKSC 9. It held that, by becoming signatories to article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, Spain and Zimbabwe submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts within the meaning of section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 and therefore could not rely on state immunity to resist the registration of ICSID arbitration awards against them under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966. The Court rejected the argument that article 54(1) did not amount to a clear and unequivocal waiver of adjudicative immunity, holding that its ordinary meaning, treaty context, object and purpose, and travaux préparatoires demonstrate that contracting states consent to recognition and enforcement of awards in the courts of other contracting states, subject only to immunity from execution preserved by article 55. Ana Margetts, Associate at RPC, provides commentary on the judgement.

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that, save in rare cases, when considering Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights in extradition cases, courts should only take into account the bare possibility of early release under foreign law and accord it little weight. The court rejected approaches that would either completely discount early release possibilities or require detailed assessment of their likelihood. Edward Grange of Corker Binning, Noam Almaz of Stokoe Partnership Solicitors and Ania Grudzinska of Guernica 37 Chambers comment on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that local authorities can lawfully restrict planning committee voting to members who attended previous meetings where the application was considered. Patrick Robinson, Legal Associate, Daniel Whittle, Senior Associate, both of Burges Salmon, Claire Ward, Partner at Anthony Collins, and Alistair Robertson, Partner, and Nico Tilche, Senior Associate, both of DAC Beachcroft, comment on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal concerning the interpretation of local authority duties under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (H(S)A 1987) and the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014, SSI 2014/243. The Court distinguished between the duty to ‘meet needs’ in permanent accommodation and to ‘take account of needs’ in temporary accommodation. The ruling establishes that local authorities must consider but are not required to meet all household needs when providing interim accommodation under H(S)A 1987, s 29.

Tax analysis: In Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL), the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by PGMOL. It held that although the minimum requirements of mutuality of obligation and control that were necessary for the existence of a contract of employment existed, it remitted the case to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) to decide, on the basis of its original findings of fact, if the individual match contracts when considered in the round, were contracts of employment.

Tax analysis: In D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside Limited and another v Uber Britannia Limited, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Uber Britannia’s appeal and found that private taxi operators may structure their arrangements to act as agents, thereby reducing the amount of the fare that may be subject to VAT.