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)

The Trinity Term started on the 13 June, and from Monday 18 June 2012 in the Supreme Court are the linked appeals of RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and KM v Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which the appellants are Zimbabwean nationals that have been refused asylum in the UK. They are not “political refugees” as they did not have any particular political commitments in Zimbabwe, but contend they face a real risk of persecution if returned due to their unwillingness or inability to prove loyalty to the Mugabe regime. It is for the Supreme Court to determine whether the principles in HJ (Iran) could extend to a person who has no firm political views but might be willing to lie in order to avoid persecution. These cases are listed for two days in front of a panel of seven (L Hope, L Hale, L Kerr, L Clarke, L Dyson, L Wilson and L Reed).

On Wednesday 20 June 2012 over two days is Hamilton (Tullochgribban Mains) Ltd) v The Highland Council & Anor, on appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland). The second respondent owns the mineral rights to a site owned by the appellant, and has applied to the first respondent council for approval of a schedule of conditions governing planning permission for mineral working at the site.  The appellant contends that planning permission for mineral extraction exists only over a small area (“the green area”) within the larger area proposed by the council (“the red area”), and seeks declarator that no valid relevant planning permission exists outside of the red area. The validity of the proposed decision depends ultimately on the meaning and effect of the decision of the council intimated in a letter of 15 July 1997, and it is for the Supreme Court to determine the correct interpretation of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Sch 9 and of the relevant correspondence. Case details are available here.

On Wednesday 20 June 2012 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the following: BH & Anor v The Lord Advocate & Anor, KAS or H v The Lord Advocate & Anor, R ( HH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa, R (PH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa, and F-K v Polish Judicial Authority.  

There are no sittings or hand-downs scheduled in the Privy Council this week.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

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

Perry & Ors v Serious Organised Crime Agency and Perry & Ors (No. 2) v Serious Organised Crime Agency, heard 20 – 23 March 2012.

R v Waya, heard 27 – 30 March 2012.

Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers, heard 18 – 19 April 2012.

R (Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 24 – 27 April 2012.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Munir & Anor, heard 24 – 27 April 2012.

Oracle America Inc (formerly Sun Microsystems Inc) v M-Tech Data Ltd, heard 30 April – 1 May 2012.

Phillips v Mulcaire, heard 8 May – 10 May 2012.

Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 14 – 15 May 2012.

DD (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 16 – 17 May 2012.

Rubin & Anor v Eurofinance SA & ors, heard 21 – 24 May 2012.

Gow v Grant, heard 23 May 2012.

SerVaas Incorporated v Rafidian Bank & Ors, heard 28 – 29 May 2012.

The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council, heard 13 – 14 June 2012.