Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India confirmed that transnational issue estoppel limits challenges to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act). Where issues have been fully argued and determined by the seat court, they cannot be re-litigated before Indian enforcement courts under the guise of public policy objections. The court emphasised the narrow scope of Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, rejecting attempts at merits review and reinforcing finality in arbitral proceedings. However, it preserved a limited exception for objections genuinely engaging Indian public policy. The decision strengthens India’s pro-enforcement stance, curbs duplicative litigation across jurisdictions, and underscores the need for award-debtors to exhaust all challenges at the seat. Produced in partnership with Juhi Gupta, counsel and Sanjana Kattoor, associate, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Corporate Crime analysis: Amjid Jabbar, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, examines the Supreme Court’s decision that a magistrate issuing a search and seizure warrant and a Crown Court considering whether the police should be allowed to retain seized property could consider material which was withheld from disclosure to the subject of the warrant on public interest immunity grounds.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Will a trustee’s transfer of trust assets in breach of trust following the commencement of the beneficiary’s winding-up be void? Mark Hapgood QC and Alan Roxburgh, of Brick Court Chambers, consider the Supreme Court’s answer in Akers v Samba Financial Group.

The UK Supreme Court has published a consultation on the proposed revision of the Supreme Court Rules. The consultation paper sets out the draft revised Supreme Court Rules which cover interpretation and scope; the portal, filing and service of documents; application for permission to appeal; commencement and preparation of an appeal; the hearing and decision of an appeal; general provisions; particular appeals and references; fees and costs; and transitional arrangements. The consultation closes on 17 May 2024.

The Supreme Court has unanimously quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo for conspiracy to defraud relating to the manipulation of the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Euro Inter-bank Offered Rate (EURIBOR). The Court ruled that the consideration of trading advantages when submitting rates does not automatically render submissions false or misleading, and that determining whether the submissions represented genuine opinions is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law. The judgment was delivered by Lord Leggatt, with all other Justices concurring.

Corporate Crime analysis: Both Mr Hayes and Mr Palombo had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in relation to alleged attempts to influence LIBOR (in the case of Mr Hayes) and EURIBOR (in the case of Mr Palombo). Mr Hayes was convicted in 2015 and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment, reduced to eleven years on appeal. Mr Palombo was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Appeals against these convictions were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Following a decision of the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v Connolly and Black, 24 F 4th 821 (2nd Cir 2022), in which LIBOR-rigging convictions were reversed, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the convictions back to the Court of Appeal . The Court of Appeal again rejected the appeal but the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeals, quashed both convictions. The long procedural history of the case raises concerns about the effectiveness of the criminal appeal system in England and Wales in confronting legal error. Written by Elizabeth Walsh, barrister at 4 Stone Buildings.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council [2024] UKSC 15, holding that, in consideration of the application of the ‘but for’ test, no damages should be awarded where the diminution in value of the claimant’s land was not caused by the defendant’s tortious conduct. This judgment is of importance for cases in which the encroachment of Japanese knotweed began before the duty to treat Japanese knotweed arose in 2013. Tom Carter, Barrister at Ropewalk Chambers and the legal representative for the respondent, comments on the implications of the judgement.

The Supreme Court has announced that it has refused permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Markou v Financial Conduct Authority [2024] EWCA Civ 1575. The FCA issued the appellant, Markos Markou, with a Decision Notice in 2021 prohibiting him from performing regulated activities and imposing a financial penalty of £25,000. Markou challenged the FCA’s decision before the Upper Tribunal. On 27 April 2023, the Tribunal allowed his reference and remitted the matter to the FCA with directions. The FCA then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on 17 December 2024 partially upheld the appeal, declined to remit the case, and remade the original decision by reducing the fine to £10,000. Markou appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has announced that it has refused permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Goodinson v PRA Group (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 957 (UKSC 2021/0165) because the application does not raise an arguable point of law.

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has refused permission to appeal in the matter of Shamima Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) UKSC 2024/0096, because the four grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law. UKSC has also ordered Begum to pay the SSHD’s costs in an amount to be determined in accordance with section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. UKSC has further ordered for there to be a detailed assessment of the Begum’s legal aid costs.

A panel of seven justices sitting in the Supreme Court has unanimously declined to introduce a ‘but for’ causation test that would have allowed fiduciaries to retain profits if they could show they could have made them without breaching their fiduciary duties. The Supreme Court’s decision, featuring a leading opinion from Lord Briggs and three concurring judgments, maintains that profits made by fiduciaries are held on constructive trust for their principal from the moment they are made, regardless of whether they could have been obtained legitimately.

Corporate Crime analysis: Edward Jones, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors, examines the Supreme Court’s decision in In the matter of an application by Lorraine Gallagher for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland); R (on the application of P, G and W) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another. This case established that the statutory scheme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland governing disclosure of ex-offenders’ criminal records to potential employers, where employment involves contact with children or vulnerable adults, is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).