Share it

Hearings in the Supreme Court are now shown live on the Court’s website.

On Tuesday 19th July, the Court will hear the Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill. The Court will consider whether clause 5(2)(a) of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill is outside the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly because it disproportionately interferes with the rights of persons who wish to express their opposition to the provision of abortion treatment services in Northern Ireland. The hearing will take place at 10:30 in Courtroom One.

On Wednesday 20th July, the Supreme Court will hand down three judgments:

  1. Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21- on appeal from [2019] EWCA Civ 1402

The judgment will consider whether a worker’s right to paid annual leave is accumulated according to the working pattern of the worker and/or is pro-rated.

  1. AA (Nigeria), RA (Iraq) and HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 22 – on appeal from [2020] EWCA 1296 and [2020] EWCA 1176.

There are several issues in this combined appeal, including the correct approaches to several provisions in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. These include the test for whether “the effect of [a foreign criminal]’s deportation on [their] partner or child would be unduly harsh” within the meaning of section 117C(5), and the test for “very compelling circumstances” for not deporting a foreign criminal under section 117C(6). The Court will also consider the conflicting approaches in  Binbuga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 551 and HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1176 as to the relevance of evidence in relation to the foreign criminal’s rehabilitation and how much weight should tribunals accord to such evidence in the context of the above tests.

  1. R v Luckhurst [2022] UKSC 23 – [2020] EWCA 1579

The proposed appeal relates to the scope of permitted legal expenditure as an exception to a restraint order granted pursuant to section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether section 41(4) prohibits an exception for reasonable legal expenses in respect of civil proceedings relating to the same or similar facts as those of the offence(s) giving rise to the restraint order.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 20/7/22)

  • The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019
  • BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors, heard 4 May 2021
  • East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021
  • Guest and another v Guest heard 3rd December 2021
  • Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery heard 7th December 2021
  • Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC, heard 19th January 2022
  • Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v NCL Investments Ltd and another, heard 25th January 2022
  • DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland), heard 8th February 2022
  • Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v NHS Lothian Health Board, heard 8th June 2022
  • Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter, heard 14th June 2022
  • R v Andrewes, heard 21st June 2022
  • Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority, heard 4th July 2022
  • DB Symmetry Ltd and another v Swindon Borough Council, heard 12th July 2022
  • Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill, heard 19th July 2022.