Two Dutch haulage companies are sued in England for loss of cigarettes under their control. They had no knowledge of a contractual provision that the English courts had jurisdiction over the claim. Should they have been released from the proceedings?

A freezing order to the value of US$4 billion is placed over the assets in England and Wales of a Kazakhstani businessman. He then obtains loan facilities worth £10 million from companies in the British Virgin Islands. Are the loan facilities "assets" within the terms of the freezing order?

An alleged member of the IRA is charged in 2010 with attempted murder of a part-time soldier in 1981. He seems to have given incriminating evidence when applying for asylum in Sweden 27 years prior to his trial. Should the information from his asylum application be introduced as evidence in his criminal trial?

An applicant for a student visa fails to provide all of the financial information sought. Should the UK Border Agency have contacted him to seek the information, or simply - as it did - rejected the application? The instructions to the applicant were not clear, and the instructions to the caseworker suggested a certain flexibility. What did the UK Supreme Court think?

Should a judge have set aside a settlement in family proceedings once it became clear that the husband had misled the court as to the value of his business, and the fact that it was about to be floated? Who had the burden of satisfying the court whether it should be set aside - the perpetrator or the victim of the fraud?

The issue in this case concerned whether a life prisoner had been lawfully held in segregation from other prisoners for a period totalling over four years. The Supreme Court was particularly concerned about the role of a body called the Executive Committee for the Management of Difficult Prisoners (ECMDP) in determining whether the prisoner in question should be segregated.

This case concerns non-disclosure of assets in family proceedings. The parties had reached a settlement, but the wife subsequently found that the husband had significant assets he had failed to disclose to the court. The Supreme Court had to decide how to deal with this situation, especially where the order of the High Court was made partly on consideration of inadmissible evidence.

A short podcast on the UK Supreme Court case of Secretary of State v. Tolley

A short discussion of the UK Supreme Court case of R (Tigere) v. Secretary of State for Business.