Tax analysis: The Supreme Court considered HMRC’s appeal relating to the tax treatment of the exercise of an option held by a director in the respondent company. HMRC contended that the gain arising on exercise of the option was taxable as employment income on the basis that the option was an employment-related securities option for the purposes of section 471 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003), and therefore subject to income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs). The Supreme Court disagreed with the Inner House of the Court of Session concluding that the application of the deeming provision in the circumstances did not result in an anomalous result and allowed HMRC’s appeal ruling that the option was an employment-related securities option by virtue of ITEPA 2003, s 471(3). As well as outlining a summary of the decision, this News Analysis also contains commentary from Jeremy Edwards, partner, at Baker & McKenzie LLP.

Tax analysis: The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed HMRC’s appeal, holding that payments received by Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) did not constitute income from immovable property for the purposes of Article 6 of the UK-Canada double tax treaty (DTT). This was because the payments were not ‘consideration for the working of, or the right to work’ the Buchan oil field. As such, the UK-Canada DTT did not confer on the UK a right to tax the payments. Lord Briggs, in his dissenting judgment, held that the payments did fall within Article 6(2). As well as outlining a summary of the decision, this News Analysis also contains commentary from Philip Baker, KC, Field Court Tax Chambers.

Tax analysis: In Dolphin Drilling, the Supreme Court dismissed the company’s appeal, deciding that the ‘hire cap’ under the oil contractor regime applied to restrict the corporation tax deduction available to it for the cost of chartering a tender support vessel (TSV).

On 26 February 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in N3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). In a unanimous decision delivered by Lord Sales and Lord Stephens in a joint judgment, the Supreme Court held that where an order to deprive a person of their citizenship is withdrawn, eg following a successful appeal, that order is to be treated as having no effect for the purpose of determining an individual’s citizenship status in the period from the date of the making of the order until it is withdrawn. The only qualification is as regards the lawfulness of immigration enforcement action taken by the Secretary of State over that period. As a result, both E3 and N3 were regarded as having been a British citizen throughout the relevant period (between 2017 when the SSHD first made the deprivation order and April 2021 when the order was withdrawn), and E3’s daughter, ZA, who was born in 2019 in Bangladesh, acquired British citizenship by descent due to E3’s status. Alex Papasotiriou, Barrister at Richmond Chambers, comments on the judgment.

Pubic Law analysis: This is an important decision by the Supreme Court in holding public law and regulatory bodies to account. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong in its assessment of the claimant’s objective in bringing JR proceedings at too high a level of generality. The Court of Appeal had held that the claimant wished to achieve the result, via JR proceedings, of preventing noxious gases from escaping the refuse disposal site. The Supreme Court held that the immediate objective of the JR proceedings was a different one, to seek to compel the defendant regulators to carry out their public law duties, and not to seek direct relief from the site occupier. Written by Mirza Ahmad LLD (Hon), barrister at St Philips Chambers.

IP analysis: The Supreme Court has restored the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold (as he then was)—Sky acted in bad faith when applying for overly-broad trade marks. Those trade marks were therefore partially invalid (to the extent that Sky did not intend to use them). The Supreme Court has also approved the High Court’s narrowing of Sky’s specification. However, Skykick’s appeal against the finding that it infringed was dismissed. This decision, of the highest authority, has clarified that a lack of intention to use a trade mark for goods or services included in the application can provide the basis of a bad faith invalidity challenge. The judgment provides guidance on the circumstances in which this type of bad faith will be established. Written by Giles Parsons (partner), Bonita Trimmer (consultant) and Alice Elliott-Foster (associate) at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Immigration analysis: Darren Stevenson, principal of McGill & Co Solicitors, examines the Supreme Court’s decision that the abolition of the rule that British citizenship by descent could not be transmitted through the female line required the condition under the British Nationality Act 1948 (BNA 1948) that the person’s birth should be registered at a British consulate within a year to be treated as inapplicable.

Law360, London: The UK Supreme Court will weigh in on whether an artificial intelligence (AI) company's invention constitutes a computer programme, in a high-profile case that could set new patentability guidelines for the technology.

The Supreme Court, by decisions given on 26 February 2021, allowed appeals by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in three sets of proceedings, including relating to the ability of Shamima Begum to enter the UK in order to appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deprive her of British citizenship.  It rejected her cross-appeal in one proceeding. Eric Fripp, barrister at 36 Public & Human Rights, part of The 36 Group, comments on the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) appeal and excluded from the order, in favour of the daughter, any sum for the success fee. Richard Dew, barrister at Ten Old Square, comments that the decision that costs cannot be recovered as part of the award restores the position to what it ought to have been and Brie Stevens-Hoare KC of Gatehouse Chambers highlights that the decision will ensure that applicants who use conditional fee agreements to access justice pay the price of their costs being conditional. Oliver Ingham of 3 Paper Buildings further notes the Supreme Court has made clear that success fees remain the responsibility of the claimant, preserving the integrity of the wider costs regime and ensuring consistency across civil litigation.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal, that damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) caused by whiplash injuries (WLIs) and non-whiplash injuries (NWLIs), should be assessed concurrently where suffered in the same road traffic accident. Robert Weir KC and Tom Westwell, Barristers at Devereux Chambers, discuss the implications of the judgment highlighting that there is now a lack of clarity in how this should be calculated and will likely cause inconsistent decisions. Shannon Eastwood, Barrister at Atlantic Chambers, also comments on the judgment noting that the decision is a welcome definitive answer for practitioners.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal and found that the test derived from Bolam is the correct legal test in determining the reasonable treatment options that a doctor has a duty of reasonable care to inform a patient about. Robert Weir and Tom Westwell, Barristers at Devereux Chambers, Carin Hunt, Barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and Alex Stutt, Solicitor at Anthony Gold comment on the Supreme Court’s judgment.