Visit UKSC
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
This is the final court of appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It also serves those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to His Majesty in Council or, in the case of republics, to the Judicial Committee.
The Court is open today from 9.00AM to 4.30PM
LISTINGS
Upcoming
- Michael O'Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd and another (Respondents) v J.P. Morgan Europe Ltd and others (Appellants)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
2 April 2025
Lord Sales,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Burrows,
Lady Rose,
Lord Richards
(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked cases
- Michael O'Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd and another (Respondents) v NatWest Markets Plc and others (Appellants)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
2 April 2025
Lord Sales,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Burrows,
Lady Rose,
Lord Richards
(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) on the basis that the CAT’s decision incorrectly relied on its provisional assessment of the merits in determining whether proceedings should be certified as opt-in or opt-out? (2) In deciding to overturn the decision of the CAT, was the Court of Appeal wrong to place reliance on factors such as the likelihood of claims proceeding if not certified as opt-out and certain principles underlying the statutory scheme for collective proceedings?
Linked cases
- R (Appellant) v Layden (Respondent)
UK Supreme Court
Judgment
2 April 2025
Lord Hodge,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Stephens,
Lady Simler
Is the jurisdiction of the Crown Court to retry a defendant under sections 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1988 contingent upon the fulfilment of the procedural requirements contained in section 8 of the same act, such that a defendant who has not been arraigned within two months of the date of the order committing him for retrial cannot be lawfully retrial (save with leave of the Court of Appeal)?
- Johnson (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
2 April 2025
Lord Reed,
Lord Hodge,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Briggs,
Lord Hamblen
(1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation? (2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers? (3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies? (4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty? (5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?
Linked cases
- Wrench (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
2 April 2025
Lord Reed,
Lord Hodge,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Briggs,
Lord Hamblen
(1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation? (2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers? (3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies? (4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty? (5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?
Linked cases
THINGS TO DO
Take a tour of the Court
We offer a range of tours to suit individuals and groups, including in-person and virtual tours.
Exhibitions and events
Find out what's on, including our permanent exhibition about the history and work of the Court.
NEWS
Future judgments
•
28 March 2025
Future Judgment
Future Judgment
Other
•
26 March 2025
Adjustment to timing of court session
The schedule for the court session on Monday, March 31, 2025, has been modified.
Corporate updates
•
26 March 2025
UK Supreme Court reflects on its three year Change Programme
Change Programme Case Management Portal New websites
SPEECHES
LATEST JUDGMENTS
24 March 2025
Marcia Ayers-Caesar (Respondent) v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)- National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking and Trust) Ltd (in Administration) and another (Appellants) v Chief Minister of Anguilla and 3 others (Respondents) (Anguilla)
18 March 2025
Rubis Bahamas Ltd (Appellant) v Lillian Antionette Russell (Respondent) (The Bahamas)11 March 2025
Changyou.com Ltd (Appellant) v Fourworld Global Opportunities Fund Ltd and 7 others (Respondents) (Cayman Islands)10 March 2025
Nirmal Mahadeo (Appellant) v Candice Mahadeo (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)