IP analysis: The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision and injunction in its recent judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that Amazon had indeed infringed Lifestyle’s trade marks by targeting UK consumers from its US website and selling a third party’s goods, bearing their own validly registered US trade mark that was coincidentally identical to Lifestyle’s ‘BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB’ mark. This case is of particular interest because it is the first Supreme Court-level decision on the complex topic of territory-specific targeting of consumers in relation to trade mark infringement by online sellers. Written by Emma Kennaugh-Gallacher, senior professional support lawyer at IP firm Mewburn Ellis.

Law360: A pension scheme administrator urged the UK Supreme Court on 7 October 2026 to rule that minor data breaches cannot attract compensation, as it seeks to defend against claims by more than 400 police officers whose pension benefit statements were sent to outdated addresses.

Law360: The Supreme Court will not hear an attempt by Spain to overturn part of its challenge to a decision that it lacked sovereign immunity in a complex case brought by insurers over the Prestige oil spill off the Spanish coast.

In AM (Zimbabwe) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 17, the Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal and to remit the appellant’s claim under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be heard by the Upper Tribunal. Alasdair Mackenzie, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, discusses the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court's ruling dismissed the appeals by insurers so far as they concerned the policies with "contracted" wordings, allowed the appeals against insurers and dismissed the appeal by the Independent, so far as they concerned policies with "sustained" wordings. The decision has resolved the position in relation to the construction of employers' liability insurance policies and opens the way for an additional “1 in 8” asbestos claimants.

The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the Kingdom of Bahrain's appeal concerning the scope of the territorial tort exception in section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978). The Court held that a foreign state is not entitled to immunity where personal injury or property damage is caused by an act in the UK, even if the individual responsible for the act was physically located abroad. On the assumed facts, the alleged hacking of computers located in the UK amounted to acts occurring within the UK and therefore fell within the exception to state immunity contained in SIA 1978, s 5. Ross Beaton senior associate at Payne Hicks Beach comments on the judgement.

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the case of Popoviciu (Respondent) v Curtea De Apel Bucharest (Romania) (Appellant) [2023] UKSC 39. The case concerned Gabriel Popoviciu, who had appealed to the High Court against his extradition order on the basis that the judge that convicted him in Romania, of offences pertaining to accessory to aggravated abuse of power and bribery, had an undisclosed and inappropriate long-standing relationship with the prosecution’s primary witness. The High Court quashed the extradition order made by the magistrates’ court. The principal issue for determination by the Supreme Court was whether, in a conviction extradition case, it is sufficient for the requested person to show substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that his trial was so flagrantly unfair as to deprive him of the essence of his Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights, and therefore a real risk that his imprisonment in the requesting state will violate his Article 5 ECHR rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Romanian authorities, as the European Arrest Warrant had been withdrawn following the hearing of the appeal, but nevertheless decided to deliver its judgment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misdirected itself and applied the wrong standard of proof, finding that Popoviciu had to show that the allegations of bias and corruption that he made against the Romanian judge were true on the balance of probabilities. Alexander dos Santos, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, discusses key findings of the case.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal concerning challenges to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (NIT(LR)A 2023). The Court held that the immunity provisions and related restrictions on civil proceedings did not breach article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework because the applicants’ EU-derived rights had not been diminished by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. However, declarations made by the courts below that various provisions of the Act are incompatible with articles 2, 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights remain in force, as those findings were not appealed. The Court also held that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) could not be found prospectively incapable of carrying out Convention-compliant investigations in all or almost all cases. Professor Brice Dickson Professor of Law at Queen’s University Belfast, Professor Colin Murray Professor of Law and Democracy at Newcastle University Law School and Dr Lewis Graham, Lecturer in Human Rights Law, University of Manchester comment on the judgment.

The principle of vicarious liability can apply outside the sphere of employment. A two-stage test applies: (1) consider whether the relationship between the wrongdoer and the party alleged to be vicariously liable is one that is capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, and (2) consider whether the act done is connected to that relationship in such a way as to give rise to vicarious liability. The first stage will be satisfied where the relationship (although not employment) has all the essential elements of the relationship between employer and employees. Satisfaction of the second stage test (a) will usually involve an act that is required or requested of the wrongdoer pursuant to the relationship, done in a manner that is negligent, but (b) may also occur where commission of the act (eg sexual abuse) is facilitated by the relationship.

In a pragmatic decision, the Supreme Court has considered the application of CPR 6.15(2) dealing with alternative service and has provided much needed clarification that it can be applied to make a retrospective order for alternative service out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.37(5)(b)(i) either via the provisions in CPR 6.15(2) or by implication. It has also highlighted that the application of CPR 6.15(2) needs to be seen in a different light to the more traditional approach taken by the Court of Appeal. Applying the provision does not seek to interfere with the sovereignty of another state, rather it ties in with the modern day approach as seen under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the jurisdiction provisions in many regulations and conventions, eg Judgments Regulation, that litigation should be conducted efficiently and in a jurisdiction in which it is appropriate to hear the dispute.

Appeals filed before 2 December 2024 This Practice Note applies only to: • appeals to the Supreme Court that were proceeding before 2 December 2024, and • applications for permission to appeal and notices of appeal that were filed before 2 December 2024 unless the court or Registrar directs that the SCR shall apply (SCR 62). Appeals filed before 2 December 2024 are subject to the Supreme Court Rules 2009 (revoked) and the Practice Directions as they were in force up to that date. References to those Rules and Practice Directions in this Practice Note are in the form ‘old SCR 23’ and ‘old SCR PD 2’. Copies of those Rules and Practice Directions may be found here: Appeals filed on or after 2 December 2024 Cases that do not fall within the categories noted above (or where the court or Registrar has directed that the SCR will apply) are subject to the SCR and the associated Practice Directions. For guidance on such cases, see Practice Notes: • Supreme Court—role, structure and powers—on or after

Local Government analysis: Sophy Miles and Gemma Daly, of Doughty Street Chambers, examine the Supreme Court's decision in Welsh Ministers v PJ concerning a patient who had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) and later released subject to a community treatment order (CTO). The court ruled that the patient’s responsible clinician (RC) could not impose conditions in the CTO which would amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).