We are the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. The Court is closed for the remainder of the day Log in to Case Management Portal Practice Directions Future Judgments Forthcoming Hearings Permission to Appeal Decisions Visit the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council website UK Supreme Court Judgment 17 September 2026 Forthwell Limited (Appellant) v Pontegadea UK Limited (Respondent) Lord Reed, Lord Stephens, Lady Simler, Lord Doherty, Lord Hodge In what circumstances can a party to a contract recover damages for a breach of that contract in respect of losses that were sustained not by the contracting party itself but by its subsidiary? UK Supreme Court 17 September 2026 In what circumstances can a party to a contract recover damages for a breach of that contract in respect of losses that were sustained not by the contracting party itself but by its subsidiary? 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 19 November 2026 (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? 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 23 November 2026 Lord Lloyd-Jones, 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? 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 UK Supreme Court 23 November 2026 Lord Lloyd-Jones, 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? The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Hearing 24 November 2026 Mark Byers and others (Respondents) v Chen Ningning (Appellant) (Virgin Islands) Lord Sales, Lord Briggs, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose, Lord Snowden (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that the loss to an insolvent company caused by preferential payments made to a creditor includes the loss suffered by its general body of creditors? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to order the director of the company to pay equitable compensation for such loss, in circumstances where the director had not obtained any profits by the breach of their fiduciary duty? (3) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to award pre-judgment interest at 5% per annum running from 29 November 2009? The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 24 November 2026 (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that the loss to an insolvent company caused by preferential payments made to a creditor includes the loss suffered by its general body of creditors? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to order the director of the company to pay equitable compensation for such loss, in circumstances where the director had not obtained any profits by the breach of their fiduciary duty? (3) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to award pre-judgment interest at 5% per annum running from 29 November 2009? 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. The UK Supreme Court cafe is open to the public Monday to Friday between 9am and 4pm. Future judgments • 10 September 2026 Future Judgments Future judgments Future judgments 10 September 2026 Future Judgments Future judgments Latest judgments • 9 September 2026 Latest judgments Latest judgments Latest judgments 9 September 2026 Latest judgments Latest judgments Justices • 8 September 2026 Lord Briggs confirmed as the next President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom HM The King has approved the appointment of Lord Briggs as the next President of the Supreme Court 8 September 2026 Lord Briggs confirmed as the next President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom HM The King has approved the appointment of Lord Briggs as the next President of the Supreme Court PDF Chitty at 200 Lord Leggatt PDF | 169.80 KB 20 July 2026 PDF | 169.80 KB PDF Climate Change and Private Law Lord Sales PDF | 89.12 KB 16 July 2026 Climate Change and Private Law PDF Mechanisms of Constitutional Review Lord Reed PDF | 328.08 KB 15 July 2026 Mechanisms of Constitutional Review PDF | 328.08 KB PDF Mechanisms of Constitutional Review in Recent Cases Lord Stephens PDF | 301.47 KB 15 July 2026 Mechanisms of Constitutional Review in Recent Cases PDF | 301.47 KB LATEST JUDGMENTS 9 September 2026 In the Petition of DM No 1 9 September 2026 In the Petition of DM No 2 27 August 2026 Avon Freeholds Limited (Respondent) v Cresta Court E RTM Company Limited (Appellant) 12 August 2026 Augustine (Appellant) v Data Cars Limited (Respondent) 27 July 2026 Tesla, Inc and others (Respondents) v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc and another (Appellants) No 2