Top 10 UK Supreme Court Judgments of All Time

R v Jogee (2016)
This ruling overhauled the law on joint enterprise in criminal cases. Previously, a person could be convicted of a crime committed by another if he foresaw it might happen. The Supreme Court found this approach to be a misinterpretation of the law, stating that intention to assist or encourage was required for secondary liability. This correction marked a major shift in criminal justice, affecting numerous past convictions.

Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017)
In the wake of the Brexit referendum, the UK government intended to trigger Article 50 using royal prerogative powers. The Supreme Court held that doing so without parliamentary approval would be unconstitutional. This landmark judgment reinforced the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, asserting that only Parliament can change domestic law or remove rights, especially when implementing something as significant as EU withdrawal. The decision was a defining moment in post-referendum constitutional law and executive accountability.

Miller (No. 2) / Cherry v Prime Minister / AG for Scotland (2019)
The court ruled unanimously that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament in the run-up to Brexit was unlawful. The judges found that the action had an extreme effect on democracy by preventing parliamentary scrutiny, without reasonable justification. The prorogation was declared null and void. This case was historic in reaffirming that no one, including the Prime Minister, is above the law, and that the courts can intervene in political decisions when legality is in question.

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017)
UNISON challenged the introduction of employment tribunal fees, arguing they denied access to justice. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the fees were unlawful as they hindered individuals from exercising their legal rights. This landmark case emphasised that access to justice is a fundamental constitutional principle. Following the judgment, the fees were abolished, and the government had to refund millions to claimants. The case reinforced the idea that cost barriers cannot obstruct legal redress in a democratic society.

FCA v Arch Insurance (2021)
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, many small businesses faced denied claims under business interruption insurance. The Supreme Court clarified that policy wordings should be interpreted broadly in favour of policyholders when it came to pandemic-related losses. The court’s ruling ensured that thousands of claimants received compensation, with estimated payouts exceeding £1 billion. It was a landmark victory for small businesses and set a significant precedent on interpreting insurance contracts during unforeseen national crises like pandemics.

Finch v Surrey County Council (2024)
Environmental activist Sarah Finch challenged planning permission for oil drilling at Horse Hill, arguing downstream carbon emissions should have been assessed. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that environmental impact assessments must consider the full climate implications of fossil fuel projects, including emissions from end-use. This ruling marked a breakthrough in environmental law, aligning planning decisions with climate obligations under UK and international law. It empowers communities to hold developers and authorities accountable for climate-related consequences of major projects.

Standish v Standish (2025)
In this high-profile divorce case, the Supreme Court clarified how gifts and non-matrimonial property should be treated. Despite Clive Standish transferring £78 million in investments to his wife before separation, the court ruled these remained non-matrimonial assets, emphasising the donor’s intention and purpose of the transfer. The judgment redefined how courts approach asset division in wealthy divorces and reinforced that not all inter-spousal transfers automatically become shared property, especially when they are for investment or inheritance preservation.

Bull v Hall (2013)
The Christian owners of a guesthouse refused a double room to a same-sex couple, citing religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled this was unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. It reaffirmed that religious beliefs do not permit discrimination in commercial services. The case was significant in advancing LGBTQ+ rights and confirmed that equality protections take precedence over personal religious views in public settings. It set a clear boundary for balancing religious freedom with anti-discrimination law.

Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd (2015)
This case dealt with directors accused of fraudulent trading who tried to attribute their fraud to the company to avoid liability. The Supreme Court rejected this, stating that a company cannot be said to be complicit in its own fraud when victimised by its directors. The judgment confirmed that wrongdoers cannot use the corporate structure to shield themselves. It clarified corporate attribution principles and extended insolvency protections to prevent abuse of limited liability and director misconduct.

Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice (2014)
Tony Nicklinson, who had locked-in syndrome, sought the right to assisted suicide, arguing that the law banning it was incompatible with his human rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, stating that Parliament, not the courts, should decide on such morally complex issues. While expressing sympathy, the court held that judicial change would be inappropriate without wider legislative and public debate. The ruling highlighted the limits of judicial activism in areas involving deep ethical and societal questions.