Oct.2026. Judgment at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

• UKSC/2025/0034•
• EU LAWThe Kingdom of Spain and another (Respondents) v The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited (Appellant) No 2Judgment given[2026] UKSC 36
• Case summary: Can an arbitral tribunal award equitable compensation against a State for breach of an equitable obligation to arbitrate? Did the Court of Appeal exceed the statutory limits of an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996?Linked cases UKSC/2025/0031 The Kingdom of Spain (Appellant) v The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited (Respondent)Legal Issue Last updated: 28 October 2026
• UKSC/2023/0127•EXTRADITIONEl-Khouri (Appellant) v Government of the United States of America (Respondent)Judgment given[2025] UKSC 3Case summary: Was the High Court’s approach to whether the appellant’s alleged conduct constituted an “extradition offence” correct, having regard to the requirements of section 137(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003? Last updated: 26 October 2026
• UKSC/2025/0028
• •TAXCommissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP (Appellant)Judgment given[2026] UKSC 18
• Case summary: Are certain members of BlueCrest LLP to be treated as employees for tax purposes? Last updated: 26 October 2026
• UKSC/2019/0209
• •EMPLOYMENT Harpur Trust (Appellants) v Brazel (Respondent)Judgment given[2022] UKSC 21
• Case summary: Whether a worker’s right to paid annual leave is accumulated according to the working pattern of the worker and/or is pro-rated .Last updated: 24 October 2026
• UKSC/2020/0066
• •LANDLORD AND TENANT
• FirstPort Property Services Ltd (Appellant) v Settlers Court RTM Company and others (Respondents)Judgment given[2022] UKSC 1
• Case summary: Where a company incorporated by leaseholders in a block of flats acquires the right to manage the block under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the Act”), and the leaseholders also enjoy rights over the estate in which the block is situated, does the company only acquire the right to manage the block itself, or does it also acquire the right to manage the rest of the estate? Last updated: 24 October 2026
• UKSC/2020/0084•CRIME
• Akdogan and another (AP) (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
• Judgment given[2022] UKSC 2Case summary: (1) Does section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 create a strict liability offence? (2) If so, is section 13(1) compatible with article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights? Linked casesUKSC/2020/0076 Pwr (AP) (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)Legal issueLast updated: 24 October 2026
• UKSC/2020/0076•CRIME
• Pwr (AP) (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
• Judgment given[2022] UKSC 2
• Case summary: (1) Does section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 create a strict liability offence? (2) If so, is section 13(1) compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human RightsLinked casesUKSC/2020/0084 Akdogan and another (AP) (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)Legal issue Last updated: 24 October 2026
• UKSC/2018/0192•
• COMMERCIAL The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (Appellant) v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) (Respondent)Judgment given[2023] UKSC 11Case summary: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (the “Trustee”) is trustee of notes with a nominal value of USD 3bn carrying interest of 5 per cent per annum (the “Notes”). The Trustee has applied for summary judgment of its claim against Ukraine for non-payment of the sums due under the Notes. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Ukraine should be permitted to defend the claim at trial. \
• The appeals raise the following issues: (i) Did Ukraine have the capacity to issue the Notes or to ensure into the ancillary contracts? (ii) Were the Notes issued or the ancillary contracts entered into without authority? (iii) Can Ukraine maintain that it was entitled to avoid the Notes for duress exerted by the Russian Federation? (iv) Can Ukraine maintain that non-payment of the sums due under the Notes is a lawful countermeasure?Linked casesUKSC/2018/0191 The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (Respondent) v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) (Appellant)Legal issue Last updated: 21 October 2026
• UKSC/2018/0191
• •COMMERCIAL The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (Respondent) v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) (Appellant) Judgment given[2023] UKSC 11
• Case summary: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (the “Trustee”) is trustee of notes with a nominal value of USD 3bn carrying interest of 5 per cent per annum (the “Notes”). The Trustee has applied for summary judgment of its claim against Ukraine for non-payment of the sums due under the Notes. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Ukraine should be permitted to defend the claim at trial. The appeals raise the following issues: (i) Did Ukraine have the capacity to issue the Notes or to ensure into the ancillary contracts? (ii) Were the Notes issued or the ancillary contracts entered into without authority? (iii) Can Ukraine maintain that it was entitled to avoid the Notes for duress exerted by the Russian Federation? (iv) Can Ukraine maintain that non-payment of the sums due under the Notes is a lawful countermeasure?Linked casesUKSC/2018/0192 The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (Appellant) v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) (Respondent)Legal issue Last updated: 21 October 2026
• UKSC/2025/0047
• •TAX ScottishPower (SCPL) Limited and others (Respondents) v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant)Judgment given[2026] UKSC 35
• Case summary: Does the rule preventing the deduction of penalty payments for the purpose of calculating taxable profits encompass payments made to consumers/consumer organisations in settlement of regulatory investigations? Last updated: 21 October 2026
• UKSC/2023/0126
• •CONSTITUTION Darwall and another (Appellants) v Dartmoor National Park Authority (Respondent)Judgment given[2025] UKSC 20Case summary: Does section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (the “1985 Act”) confer on the public a right to pitch tents or otherwise make camp overnight on the Dartmoor Commons (“the Commons”)? Last updated: 17 October 2026
• UKSC/2023/0047
• •LANDLORD AND TENANT A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd (Appellant) v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd (Respondent) Judgment given[2024] UKSC 27
• Case summary: Does a failure to serve a claim notice on an intermediate landlord with no management responsibilities invalidate a right to manage claim under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002? Last updated: 16 October 2026
• UKSC/2020/0107
• •BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS Guest and another (Appellants) v Guest (Respondent)Judgment given[2022] UKSC 27
• Case summary: The appeal raises questions about the proper approach to granting relief under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The Supreme Court is asked to decide:
• (1) Whether a successful claimant’s expectation, in this case of inheritance of a family farm, was an appropriate starting point when considering a remedy; and
• (2) Whether the remedy granted, namely payment of a lump sum which would in effect result in the sale of the farm, went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances. Last updated: 11 October 2026
• UKSC/2020/0056
• •TORT Fearn and others (Appellants) v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (Respondent) Judgment given[2023] UKSC 4
• Case summary: Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the claimants were entitled to a remedy in the tort of private nuisance by reason of the Tate Modern’s use of the top floor of its Blavatnik Building as a viewing platform. Last updated: 11 October 2026
• UKSC/2018/0129
• •EXTRADITION Public Prosecutors Office of the Athens Court of Appeal (Appellant) v O’Connor (AP) (Respondent) (Northern Ireland) Judgment given[2022] UKSC 4
• Case summary: When considering section 26(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, can a distinction properly be drawn between the actions of a person who has done everything reasonably possible to give notice of the appeal and the actions of that person’s solicitor who has not? Last updated: 11 October 2026

Source: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Cases – UK Supreme Court