2013 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Last updated

This is a list of the 81 judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2013. They are ordered by neutral citation.

Contents

The table lists judgments made by the court and the opinions of the judges in each case. Judges are treated as having concurred in another's judgment when they either formally attach themselves to the judgment of another or speak only to acknowledge their concurrence with one or more judges. Any judgment which reaches a conclusion that differs from the majority on one or more major points of the appeal has been treated as dissent.

All dates are for 2013 unless expressly stated otherwise.

Table key


Delivered a judgment (majority)

Concurred in the judgment of another justice (majority)

Delivered a judgment (dissenting)

Concurred in the judgment of another justice (dissent)

Did not participate in the decision

2013 judgments

Case nameCitationArguedDecided Neuberger Hope Walker Hale Mance Kerr Clarke Wilson Sumption Reed Carnwath Hughes Toulson Hodge
R (Prudential plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [1] [2013] UKSC 15–7 November 201223 January
Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 26 December 201223 January
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group Plc [2013] UKSC 327–28 November 201223 January
B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 45 December 201230 January
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2] [2013] UKSC 512–14 November 20126 February
O'Brien v Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs) [3] [2013] UKSC 621–22 November 20126 February
Re Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited v Financial Services Authority [2013] UKSC 710–11 December 201213 February
Re L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 821 January20 February
Re J (Children) [1] [2013] UKSC 917–18 December 201220 February
Sharif v The London Borough of Camden [2013] UKSC 1017 January20 February
The Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc [2013] UKSC 1112–13 December 201227 February
Davies v The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care [2013] UKSC 1230 January27 February
Joint Administrators of Heritable Bank plc v The Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki Islands HF [2013] UKSC 134–5 February27 February
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 144 December 20126 March
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd (No 1) [2013] UKSC 1524–25 October 201213 March
Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2013] UKSC 1615–16 January13 March
Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 1717 January20 March
Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd [4] [2013] UKSC 1811–12 February17 April
Jones (by Caldwell) v First Tier Tribunal and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2013] UKSC 1928 February17 April
Barts and the London NHS Trust v Verma [2013] UKSC 2027 February24 April
Uprichard v Scottish Ministers [5] [2013] UKSC 215–6 March24 April
Salvesen v Riddell [2013] UKSC 2212–13 March24 April
R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 2319–21 November 20121 May
WHA Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2013] UKSC 2421–24 January1 May
R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2013] UKSC 257 March1 May
Futter v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [1] [2013] UKSC 2612–14 March9 May
SL v Westminster City Council [2013] UKSC 2728–29 January9 May
BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd [2013] UKSC 2825–26 February9 May
The President of the Methodist Conference v Preston [2013] UKSC 2913–14 February15 May
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer plc [2013] UKSC 3015 April22 May
Vestergaard Frandsen v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2013] UKSC 3124 April22 May
Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v Elliott [2013] UKSC 3222 April22 May
Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 3325 February12 June
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [1] [2013] UKSC 345–6 March12 June
Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorstk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 351–2 May12 June
O'Neill No 2 v Her Majesty's Advocate [2013] UKSC 3629–30 April13 June
Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd [6] [2013] UKSC 3713 May13 June
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (No. 1) [7] [8] [2013] UKSC 3819–21 March19 June
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (No. 2) [7] [9] [2013] UKSC 3919–21 March19 June
Cusack v London Borough of Harrow [2013] UKSC 4023 April19 June
Smith v The Ministry of Defence [1] [10] [2013] UKSC 4118–21 February19 June
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 4224–25 October 201220 June
R v Brown[2013] UKSC 437 March26 June
Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 4410–11 April26 June
North v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2013] UKSC 4520–21 May26 June
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 4629–30 April3 July
R (Sturnham) v The Parole Board of England and Wales (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 479 May3 July
Kapri v The Lord Advocate representing The Government of the Republic of Albania [2013] UKSC 4813 June10 July
R (AA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 497–8 May10 July
Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 5026–28 February17 July
R (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 515–6 June17 July
Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 5214–16 May24 July
R (Modaresi) v Secretary of State for Health [2013] UKSC 5319 June24 July
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 544 December 201224 July
South Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 558 July29 July
R v Hughes[2013] UKSC 565 June31 July
Teal Assurance Company Ltd v W R Berkley Insurance Ltd [2013] UKSC 5717–18 June31 July
McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 5810 July31 July
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2013] UKSC 599 July31 July
Re A (Children) [2013] UKSC 6022–23 July9 September
Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 6116–18 April9 October
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al-Jedda [2013] UKSC 6227 June9 October
McGeoch v The Lord President of the Council [1] [2013] UKSC 6310–11 June16 October
R v Gul [1] [11] [2013] UKSC 6425–26 June23 October
Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency [2013] UKSC 6515 July23 October
Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 663–4 July23 October
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 6724 July30 October
R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 6829 July30 October
Cotter v Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2013] UKSC 693 October6 November
The Alexandros T [2013] UKSC 708–9 July6 November
Sakalis v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania [2013] UKSC 7116–17 July20 November
Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 723–4 July20 November
Bull v Hall [2013] UKSC 739–10 October27 November
Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 7428 October27 November
Re KL (A Child) [2013] UKSC 7518 November4 December
Re an application by Martin Corey for Judicial Review [2013] UKSC 767 October4 December
R (Hodkin) v Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 7718 July11 December
R (Edwards) v Environment Agency (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 7822 July11 December
G v Scottish Ministers [2013] UKSC 797–8 October18 December
West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2013] UKSC 8029 October18 December
AA (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa) [2013] UKSC 8121 November18 December

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 An augmented panel of 7 judges sat in this case.
  2. The chart shows the judgment on the first issue of jurisdiction. On the other two issues the justices unanimously dismissed the corporate veil appeal and unanimously discharged the freezing injunction.
  3. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, also sat on this case. He concurred with the majority.
  4. The court did not make an order in this case but rather Lord Sumption gave a judgment of the court that referred the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU.
  5. The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, also sat on this case. He concurred with the majority judgment.
  6. A diminished panel of three justices heard this case.
  7. 1 2 An augmented panel of 9 judges sat in this case.
  8. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, also sat on this case. He held with the majority that closed material procedures can be adopted by the Supreme Court but partially dissented by holding that such a procedure was not appropriate as regards the appeal in question.
  9. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, also sat on this case. He, like Lord Neuberger, held that appeal should be allowed but on the procedural grounds alone. Lord Carnwath conversely allowed the appeal but only on the substantive grounds.
  10. The chart shows the judgments in respect of the article 2 issue and the question of combat immunity. The justices unanimously held that the case does fall within the UK's jurisdiction.
  11. Lord Judge also sat on this case. He and Lord Neuberger gave the lead judgment for the majority.

Judges

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial functions of the House of Lords</span> Historical judicial role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal (England and Wales)</span> Second most senior court in the English legal system

The Court of Appeal is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal was created in 1875, and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</span> Final court of appeal in the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom’s highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury</span> English judge (born 1948)

David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury is an English judge. He served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary until the House of Lords' judicial functions were transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2009, at which point he became Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales. Neuberger was appointed to the Supreme Court, as its President, in 2012. He now serves as a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and the Chair of the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom.

A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a judicial panel in the course of resolving a legal dispute, providing the decision reached to resolve the dispute, and usually indicating the facts which led to the dispute and an analysis of the law used to arrive at the decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

This is a complete list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between the court's opening on 1 October 2009 and the end of that year. Most of the cases were heard in the House of Lords before judgments were given in the new Supreme Court. The court heard 17 cases during this time; they are listed in order of each case's Neutral citation number.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2010 and statistics associated thereupon. Since the Supreme Court began its work on 1 October 2009, this year was its first full year of operation. In total, 58 cases were heard in 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Dyson, Lord Dyson</span> British judge

John Anthony Dyson, Lord Dyson, is a former British judge and barrister. He was Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, and a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2012. He was the first justice to be appointed who was not a peer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</span> The judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are the judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom other than the president and the deputy president. The Supreme Court is the highest court of the United Kingdom for civil and criminal matters in the jurisdictions of England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Judges are appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2011. They are ordered by Neutral citation.

<i>R v Horncastle</i>

R v Horncastle & Others[2009] UKSC 14 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding hearsay evidence and the compatibility of UK hearsay law with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case represents another stage in the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the higher courts of the United Kingdom about whether it is acceptable to base convictions "solely or to a decisive extent" on evidence made by a witness who is identified but does not appear in court.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2014. They are ordered by neutral citation.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2015 as of 8 August. So far 57 cases have been decided and these are ordered by neutral citation.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2012. They are ordered by Neutral citation.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2016. 65 cases were decided and these are ordered by neutral citation.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2017. 5 cases have been decided as of 25 January 2017 and these are ordered by neutral citation.

<i>Bull v Hall</i> UK discrimination and freedom of religious expression legal case

Bull and another v Hall and another[2013] UKSC 73 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Peter and Hazelmary Bull and Martin Hall and Steven Preddy. Hall and Preddy, a homosexual couple, brought the case after the Bulls refused to give them a double room in their guesthouse, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court held the rulings of the lower courts in deciding for Hall and Preddy and against the Bulls. The court said that Preddy and Hall faced discrimination which could not be justified by the Bulls' right to religious belief. It was held that people in the United Kingdom could not justify discrimination against others on the basis of their sexual orientation due to their religious beliefs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">King's Bench Division</span> Division of the English High Court of Justice

The King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice deals with a wide range of common law cases and has supervisory responsibility over certain lower courts.