The Top 10 Supreme Court Cases of 2023
On Friday I usually round-off the week with a look at the top new stories from the past seven days. However, this week between Christmas and the New Year is often rather quiet so I thought I would go over my top 10 Supreme Court cases from 2023…
In recent years, the Parole Board has become an increasingly politicised body. During his time at the Ministry of Justice, Dominic Raab introduced reforms to give ministers more powers to interfere in decisions that were previously independent of politics entirely.
This case does not deal with those changes directly but instead examines the evidence that the Parole Board can consider. Specifically, relevant, but unproven, allegations made against the prisoner.
The Supreme Court found that such allegations can be considered and given appropriate weight. The Board was advised to change its guidance to say that it can make findings of fact when it is reasonable to do so.
On occasion the Supreme Court is offered the chance to look at the internal workings of the legal sector and this case was all about how litigation gets funded.
The Justices decided that litigation funding agreements are Damages-Based Agreements and so they are unenforceable unless they comply with the relevant regulatory regime.
That judgment has already had a significant impact on law firms that rely on third-party funding for litigation and may well make it more difficult for claimants to pursue justice in the future.
In this rather sad case, a claimant had been raped by an elder within the Jehovah’s Witness church.
From a legal perspective, these proceedings were interesting because they concern the concept of vicarious liability, a topic that has been litigated heavily in the past decade or so. The test for vicarious liability looks at the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor before then looking at whether the tort was committed in the course of that role.
While this case does not necessarily change the law much, the Justices do take the chance to expound on the second limb of that test to ensure that it is not applied too liberally by the lower courts.
A sub-theme of this year in the Supreme Court was the return of payment protection insurance (PPI) to the main stage. The banking scandal that ended up becoming the subject of endless adverts in the early 2000s is still working its way through the courts.
This case alongside Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] UKSC 41 potentially expands the number of claimants who will be able to receive compensation.
Armed police are something of a necessary evil in the UK. In a perfect world, the police would not need to carry guns but violent crime requires a serious response.
In September, armed officers were in the news as they laid down their weapons to protest the prosecution of a colleague for the murder of Chris Kaba. This case does not deal with that protest directly but it does examine the legal test to be applied by the Independent Office for Police Conduct when it is investigating an officer who has shot a suspect.
Another subject that I recently covered in the newsletter was the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. If that legislation tries to close the door to any future inquests, then this case tries to keep hopes of truth, reconciliation and justice alive.
Eugene Dalton was killed by an IRA bombing in 1988 and his family has been seeking justice ever since. The Dalton’s have been failed on a number of occasions by public authorities and their judicial review finally made its way to the Supreme Court this year. Ultimately their claim failed but that is unlikely to be the end of the story as the case could end up before the European Court of Human Rights.
The gig economy continues to be one of the most tricky aspect of employment law to get to grips with. In recent times, the Supreme Court has dealt with Uber drivers and plumbers. Here the focus turned to Deliveroo drivers and their rights to unionise.
In order to find out whether there was an employment relationship, the Justices explained that it was necessary to look at the contract as well as how the contract operates in practice.
While the decision might not have broad application, it is part of an ongoing saga as a large segment of the UK workforce seeks to clarify their rights under the law.