UK Supreme Court Blog

EDITORS: Dan Tench, Emma Cross, Zainab Hodgson, Francesca Knight, James Warshaw and Natalie Haefner (CMS)
Hugh Tomlinson KC, Matthew Ryder KC, Dévante Gravesande-Smith and Rebecca Khan (Matrix)

Starting on Tuesday 13 March 2012 is the one day hearing of NJDB v JEG and anor, on appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland) and to be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Hope, Clarke, Wilson and Reed. This case revolves around a contact order applying to the appellant father’s child with the respondent mother. The parties were not married and never lived together, and after their separation the appellant was granted residential contact with the child, which the respondent breached on the grounds that the child repeatedly expressed the view that he did not want to attend these contact sessions. The contact order was recalled by Stirling Sheriff Court and the issue for the Supreme Court to consider is whether the court, in breach of ECHR art 6 and 8, failed to have proper regard to the welfare of the child in determining whether the father should have contact. Case details are available here.

Running from Wednesday 14 March and scheduled for 1.5 days is Humphreys v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an appeal from the Court of Appeal (Civ) to be heard by the same panel. The appellant, a father in receipt of income support that cares for his children for three days a week, was refused child tax credits on the grounds that as a minority carer he was not “responsible” for the children within the terms of the Child Tax Support Regulations 2002. An Appeal Tribunal held that this legislation indirectly discriminated against men as in a shared care situation only one parent is to be treated as a responsible for the child. This decision was reversed on appeal as it was held that the legislation could be objectively justified. The Supreme Court is to determine whether the indirectly discriminatory provisions of the Child Tax Support Regulations 2002 providing that the payment of child tax credits in respect of a child in shared care by two parents is to be made to the parent with main responsibility for the child can be objectively justified under ECHR, art 14. Here are the case details.

On Wednesday 14 March 2012 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in Ministry of Defence v AB and ors.

From Tuesday 13 March until Wednesday 14 March 2012 is the Privy Council hearing of The Queen ex p Mario Hoffmann v The Commissioner for the Turks & Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry (2008-2009) and The Governor of the Turks & Caicos Islands, to be heard by Lords Phillips, Brown, Mance, Kerr and Dyson. In this matter the appellant sought judicial review of the second respondent’s decision to appoint the first respondent to conduct an inquiry into corruption in the TCI House of Assembly. None of the orders sought by the appellant were made against either respondent, and this matter has come to the Privy Council on appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Case details are available here.

On Tuesday 13 March 2012 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will hand down judgment in the following:  Deenish Benjamin and Deochan Ganga v The State (Trinidad & Tobabgo) and Commissioner of Taxpayer Audit and Assessment v Cigarette Company of Jamaica Limited (in voluntary liquidation).

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

R v Waya, heard 5 May 2011.

Flood v Times Newspapers, heard 17 – 18 Oct 2011.

BAI Ltd v Thomas Bates and Son Ltd, BAI Ltd v Durham, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Company and Adur District Council and Ors, Independent Insurance Company Ltd v Fleming and Anor, Municipal Mutual Insurance Company v Zurich Insurance Company and Ors, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Edwards, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Akzo Nobel UK Ltd and Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Amec plc, heard 5 – 14 December 2011.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v E.N.E. Kos 1 Ltd, heard 12 – 15 January 2012.

Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012.

Stanford International Bank Ltd (acting by its joint liquidators) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, heard 23 – 25 January 2012.

PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v SSHD, W & BB v SSHD and Z, G, U & Y v SSHD, heard 30 – 31 January 2012.

Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority, heard 1 – 2 February 2012.

R (KM) (by his mother and litigation friend JM) v Cambridgeshire County Council, heard 7 – 9 February 2012.

In the Matter of S (a child), heard 20 February 2012.

Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and anor, heard 20 – 29 February 2012.

R (on the application of HH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, R (on the application of PH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa, BH (AP) and another v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland), KAS or H (AP) v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland) and Genoa  Filipek-Kwasny v Polish Judicial Authority, heard 5 – 8 March 2012.