The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal in A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27, holding that Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd (Tudor Studios RTM Company)’s failure to serve a claim notice on A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd (A1 Properties) did not invalidate the transfer of the right to manage. Justin Bates KC and Harley Ronan, barristers at Landmark Chambers and legal counsel for the appellant, comment on and discuss the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has held that a shipowner was not precluded from claiming against the charterer in respect of losses arising out of risks for which additional insurance had been obtained. In doing so, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the cargo interests who contended that the shipowner’s only remedy was to recover a ransom payment under the terms of the additional insurance cover. In dismissing the appeal by the cargo interests, the court held that on the proper interpretation of a charter agreement and bills of lading for a vessel, in respect of losses arising out the seizure of the vessel by pirates, there was no insurance code or fund agreed in the charter and there was no good reason to manipulate the interpretation of the charter clauses to other effect. Adrian Marsh, Partner, and Reema Shour, Senior Knowledge Lawyer, of Hill Dickinson LLP comment on the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal brought by a young girl, JR87, and her father, against the Department of Education (Northern Ireland). The court, sitting in London, has held that the teaching of religious education and the provision of collective worship in Northern Ireland’s controlled schools, as mandated under the existing statutory framework, breached their rights under Article 2 of Protocol 1 (A2P1) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) read together with Article 9 ECHR. Victoria Dennis, Educational Law Solicitor, Doyle Clayton has commented on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2024] UKSC 22, holding that, the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991) does not prevent a nuisance or trespass claim being brought in an instance of pollution by discharge of foul water despite there being no negligence or deliberate misconduct. Nicholas Ostrowski, Barrister at Six Pump Court and legal counsel for the appellant, comments on the implications of the judgement.

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that the interpretation of defence statements under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996) depends on the nature of the statement and purpose for which it is being relied upon. The court held that while questions about legal effect are matters of law for the judge, issues concerning intended or understood meaning are questions of fact for the jury. Dr Mirza Ahmad comments on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that English law does not recognise the so-called ’Mackay v Dick principle', under which a party who wrongfully prevents a contractual condition from being satisfied is treated as if the condition had been fulfilled. The Court ruled that the sellers’ claims for payment of deposits could not succeed as debts and that their sole remedy was damages for breach of contract. The judgment emphasises that English contract law should rely on interpretation and implied terms rather than legal fictions and that rejecting the ’Mackay v Dick principle’ promotes certainty and consistency in commercial dealings. Tim Wright of Fladgate and David Bridge and Lisa Fox of CMS comment on the implications of the judgment.

The Supreme Court in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC, has unanimously held that an unrecognised and unregistrable foreign judgment for a debt constitutes a ‘debt’ under section 267 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), permitting a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition on that basis. The Court affirmed the ‘obligation principle’, under which such a judgment gives rise to an immediate common law obligation to pay without prior recognition proceedings.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in R v McCafferty and others, holding that the word ‘right’ in section 78(1)(b)(ii) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA 2022) does not include a licence or permission to use private land. The court held that persons visiting private business premises as employees, customers or suppliers are not exercising a right enjoyed by the public at large because the public has no right to be on private premises or to pass along a private road that is not a highway.

President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, has issued a Practice Note concerning the participation of junior counsel in oral arguments. From 9 April 2024, the Supreme Court will require confirmation that, where junior counsel is instructed but not speaking, consideration has been given to junior counsel’s potential involvement in oral arguments. This is in response to the decline of junior counsel participating in oral advocacy in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, issuing a declaration that section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court held that TULR(C)A 1992, s 146 is the only route that could be available to the appellant to support their Article 11 right, however, this is blocked by the conventional interpretation given to section 146 and this is what is inherently objectionable. David Reade KC, barrister at Littleton Chambers, and Nick Chronias, Partner at DAC Beachcroft LLP, and Stuart Brittenden KC, barrister at Old Square Chambers, provide comment on the implications of judgment.

Public Law analysis: The Supreme Court confirmed in its judgment in R (on the application of Maguire) v His Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Fylde and another that no duty under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was engaged, dismissing the appeal by Jackie Maguire’s mother challenging the direction of the coroner that an expanded conclusion was not required. In this article, Paul Allerston, Kate Fawell-Comley and Katy Parkinson of Hill Dickinson consider the facts of the case, the systems and operational duty under Article 2 ECHR, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the impact of the judgment.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Jurisdiction and the corporate veil were the focus of a recent case before the Supreme Court. Philip Carrington and Gillian Dobby from Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, who were instructed by VTB Capital at the Supreme Court stage, believe the decision might lead to further consideration of piercing the corporate veil in the near future.