Sequent Nominees Ltd v Hautford Ltd (a company registered in the British Virgin Islands) was heard on 14th and 15th May. This case is considering whether it was reasonable for the appellant landlord, who is the freehold owner of a terraced building in London, to refuse to consent to a planning application. The Respondent tenant had applied for permission to change the use of the first and second floors of the property from office use to residential use. The appellant had refused this on the grounds that such change of use would increase the prospect of successful enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ was heard on 11th June. This case is considering the circumstances in which it is appropriate to make an order pursuant to the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 51, the effect of which is to impose on a liability insurer an extra-contractual liability to pay those third parties’ costs of bringing the claim. This matter arose in the context of liability for costs arising out of litigation concerning the supply of defective implants for use in breast surgery.

Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Ors v Commissioners of Inland Revenue was heard on 27th June. This case is considering the compatibility of UK corporate taxation with certain principles of EU law and the liabilities of the Revenue to a taxpayer who has overpaid tax on the basis of incompatible UK legislation. It is also looking at issues arising out of the case of Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKSC 39. This case arose because the Test Claimants are claiming restitution and damages from the Revenue, contending that the UK tax provisions are contrary to Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) on freedom of establishment and/or Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital.

RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was heard on 3rd July. This case is considering whether statutory authorities, including the First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, have the power or duty to calculate entitlement to housing benefit without making deductions for under-occupancy, so as not to violate a claimant’s rights under the ECHR, and if so, the extent to which the payment of discretionary housing payments are relevant to the task of the statutory authorities in calculating entitlement. This followed a decision of the First Tier Tribunal that RR required a second bedroom due to his partner’s severe disabilities and need to accommodate medical equipment and therefore that the council should not have reduced their housing benefit due to under-occupancy. This decision was then overturned by the Upper Tribunal. The Supreme Court is considering what powers the tribunals have to interpret or disapply secondary legislation.

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd was heard on 9th and 10th July. This appeal is considering whether the court can grant relief from forfeiture in respect of a contractual licence relating to the use of land, and, if so, in what circumstances. It was also considering what the nature and extent are of a riparian landowner’s rights to drain his or her land into the water flowing through it. This matter has arisen following Vauxhall missing a payment due under the terms of the perpetual licence agreed to enable it to drain its land over the Canal Company land into the river, and the Canal Company’s subsequent termination of the licence.

R (Lancashire County Council) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was heard on 15th and 16th July. This appeal is considering whether the concept of ‘statutory incompatibility’ applies to prevent land from being registered as a village green where it is held for general statutory purposes, and whether an application for registration of land as a village green has to show that there was a geographical spread of users from the locality in question. This matter arose in the context of an application to register an area of land bordering a primary school as a village green which an Inspector has allowed and the appellant council unsuccessfully judicially reviewed. This case was heard jointly with the appeal of R (NHS Property Services Ltd) v Surrey County Council & Anor which concerns an area of land bordering an NHS hospital.

In the matter of NY (A Child) was heard on 18th July. This appeal is considering whether the inherent jurisdiction can be used to order the summary re-relocation of a child where there is a statutory scheme and where the substantive and procedural characteristics of that scheme are avoided. The Israeli born parents had NY in November 2016 and moved to England together in November 2018. Following an agreement to divorce in January 2019 the father returned to Israel and commenced proceedings for divorce and custody of NY. The mother contested this, submitting that NY was habitually resident in the UK and that the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980, art 13(b) was established. The judge at first instance, supported by the Court of Appeal on appeal, held that NY was not habitually resident in England at the relevant date, the art 13(b) defence was not established, and, notwithstanding the father’s consent, he would exercise his discretion to order NY’s summary return to Israel. The mother is appealing against this decision.

R (Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd & Anor was heard on 22nd and 23rd July. This appeal is considering whether, on an application for planning permission for a wind turbine proposed to be undertaken by a community benefit society, the distribution to the local community of a community benefit fund derived from the operation of the turbine is, in the circumstances of the case, a material planning consideration which the council could lawfully take into account when considering whether to grant planning permission. This followed a judicial review of the grant of planning permission on the basis that the distribution of funds should not have been taken into account by the appellant council because it was not a material planning consideration.

Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd was heard on 23rd and 24th July. This appeal is considering whether the dishonest state of mind of the sole shareholder and a director of a company is attributable to the company for the purposes of a claim in negligence against a third party bank or broker and, if so, what the consequences are of that attribution.

Edwards on behalf of the estate of the late Arthur Watkins v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors was heard on 25th July. This appeal is considering in what circumstances the principle of full compensation is engaged, and to what extent a court should admit evidence which was obtained after the date of settlement of the original claim when determining whether a claimant has suffered loss. This matter arose following the respondent’s late husband developing vibration white finger whilst employed by the National Coal Board. He claimed damages, and accepted an offer of £9,478 following a GP assessment and advice from his solicitors, the appellant. Subsequently he brought a claim in negligence against the appellant, contending that due to their advice he had lost his opportunity to bring a services claim. The joint medical expert assessment performed at this time categorised his suffering as considerably lower than the earlier assessment had, therefore finding he would not be entitled to a services claim. The matter has come before the Supreme Court to consider whether the respondent’s chose in action has any value given the damages already paid to him, and whether the later medical assessment is admissible evidence.

R (Hemmati & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was heard on 29th and 30th July. This appeal is considering whether the Secretary of State’s published policy in the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, Ch 55 satisfied the requirements of the Dublin III Regulation, arts 2(n) and 28. If not, it is also considering whether damages are payable in respect of the detention of the respondents either for the tort of false imprisonment of pursuant to EU law under the principle established by the CJEU in the Factortame case. This matter arose in the context of five individual immigrants who were placed in detention for various periods pending possible removal to other EU Member States pursuant to the asylum arrangements under the Dublin III Regulation. The Appellant Secretary of State is appealing against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the respondents were entitled to damages for false imprisonment as a result incorrect implementation of the requirements of arts 2(n) and 28.

Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department was heard on 30th and 31st July. This appeal is considering whether it is unlawful for the Secretary of State to exercise his power to provide mutual legal assistance so as to provide evidence to a foreign state that will facilitate the imposition of the death penalty in that state on the individual in respect of whom the evidence is sought. It is also considering whether, and if so in what circumstances, it is lawful under the Data Protection Act 2018, Pt 3, as interpreted in light of relevant provisions of EU data protection law, for enforcement authorities in the UK to transfer personal data to law enforcement authorities abroad for use in capital criminal proceedings. This matter arose in the context of the appellant’s son, who is alleged to be one of a group of British terrorists operating in Syria, involved in the murder of US citizens. This appeal is against the findings of a judicial review into the decision of the Home Secretary to provide information to the US without requiring any assurance whatsoever that the information would not be used directly or indirectly in a prosecution that could lead to the imposition of the death penalty.

Cases in which judgment has already been handed down or there is or is going to be a longer Preview are not included in the above summary.