Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Upcoming

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  17 November 2026

  R (on the application of CHK) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

  Lord Sales,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lady Rose,

  Lady Simler

  Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the conditions of CHK’s immigration bail do not constitute a sufficient restraint on his liberty to justify a writ of habeas corpus? Did the Court of Appeal err in ordering CHK to pay the respondent’s costs?

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  18 November 2026

  Adriatic Land 5 Limited (Appellant) v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point and another (Respondents)

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lord Doherty

  Does paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”) preclude the recovery of legal or professional costs by way of service charge from leaseholders holding a qualifying lease where those costs were incurred before the BSA 2022 came into effect?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2025/0156 Stratford Village Development Partnership and another (Appellants) v Triathlon Homes LLP and another (Respondents)

  Legal Issue

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  19 November 2026

  Stratford Village Development Partnership and another (Appellants) v Triathlon Homes LLP and another (Respondents)

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lord Doherty

  (1) Did the Court of Appeal take the wrong approach to whether it was ‘just and equitable’ to make a remediation contribution order under s124 Building Safety Act 2022? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that a remediation contribution order under s124 Building Safety Act 2022 can be made in respect of costs incurred before that provision came into force on 28 June 2022?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2025/0157 Adriatic Land 5 Limited (Appellant) v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point and another (Respondents)

  Legal Issue

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  23 November 2026

  The Czech Republic (Appellant) v Diag Human SE and another (Respondents) No 2

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lord Doherty

  Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2025/0176 The Czech Republic (Respondent) v Diag Human SE and another (Appellants)

  Legal Issue

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  23 November 2026

  The Czech Republic (Respondent) v Diag Human SE and another (Appellants)

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lord Doherty

  Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2025/0177 The Czech Republic (Appellant) v Diag Human SE and another (Respondents) No 2

  Legal Issue

  ---