wRZza

Permission to Appeal results – April 2014 | The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Case name Justices PTA Reasons given
R (on the application of SG and
Others)(previously JS and Others)(Appellants) v
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Respondent)
UKSC 2014/0079
R (on the application of Robinson) (Appellant) v
The Governor of HMP Whatton and Another
(Respondents)
UKSC 2014/0030
Lord Neuberger
Lady Hale
Lord Kerr
Lord Neuberger
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Granted
2 Apr 2014
Granted
7 Apr 2014
R (on the application of Massey) v
The Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent)
UKSC 2014/0041
Starbucks (HK) Limited and
another(Appellants) v
British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC and others
(Respondents)
UKSC 2013/0274
Deutsche Bank AG (Appellant) v
Unitech Limited (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0269
Force India Formula One Team Limited
(Appellant) v Fondmetal Technologies SRL
(Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0175
Sharma and others (Appellants) v
Sharma (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0255
Walker & anor (Appellants) v
Burton anor (Respondents)
UKSC 2013/0262
Minerva Navigation Inc (Appellant) v
Oceana Shipping AG and another (the
Lord Neuberger
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Neuberger
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Neuberger
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Neuberger
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Neuberger
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Neuberger
Lord Clarke
Granted
7 Apr 2014
Refused
7 Apr 2014
Refused
7 Apr 2014
Refused
7 Apr 2014
Refused
7 Apr 2014
Refused
7 Apr 2014
Permission to appeal be refused because the applications do not raise an arguable
point of law. It is not normally appropriate for the Supreme Court to entertain
appeals on an issue which the Court of Appeal has simply held to be arguable, and
this is not an exception
.
Permission to appeal is refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law.
Permission to appeal is refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law of general public importance.
Permission to appeal is refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law of general public importance.
Permission to appeal is refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law.

"Athena") (Respondents)
UKSC 2013/0254
R (on the application of Gurung and others)
(Appellants) v
The Secretary of State for the Home
Department (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0067
R (on the application of Bibi and Another) (FC)
(Appellants) v
The Secretary of State for the Home
Department (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0270
Lord Sumption
Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Refused
7 Apr 2014
Granted
7 Apr 2014
Permission to appeal is refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law.
R (on the application of Ali) (AP) (Appellant) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0266
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of
Lambeth (Respondent) v
Loveridge (A.P.) (Appellant)
UKSC 2013/0273
Hotak (Appellant) v
London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0234
ZZ (Respondent) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Appellant)
UKSC 2014/0075
Sarjantson (by his litigation friend Tracy
Alexandra) (AP) (Respondent) v The Chief
Constable of Humberside (Appellant)
UKSC 2013/0244
R v
Harvey
UKSC 2013/0249
Chemistree Homecare Limited (Appellant) v
Abbvie Ltd (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0265
Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Neuberger
Lady Hale
Lord Kerr
Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Mance
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Lord Mance
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Granted
7 Apr 2014
Granted
7 Apr 2014
Refused
7 Apr 2014
Refused
9 Apr 2014
Granted
9 Apr 2014
Refused
9 April 2014
Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise a point which
ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time. The case has to proceed
in SIAC to be dealt with in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of
the European Union.
Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the
Supreme Court at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the
subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decision
was correct for the reasons they gave.
Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise a point of law
of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at
this time bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial

British America Tobacco Denmark A/S and
others (Respondents) v
Kazemier Transport B.V. (Appellant)
UKSC 2013/0258
Lord Mance
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Granted
9 April 2014
decision and reviewed on appeal.
British American Tobacco Switzerland S.A
(Respondents) v
H. Essers Security Logistics B.V. and another
(Appellants)
UKSC 2013/0259
R v
McGeough (Northern Ireland)
UKSC 2013/0248
R v
Heaven
UKSC 2014/0035
In the matter of an application by JR62 for
Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
UKSC 2014/0050
In the matter of an application by TCM (A
Minor) (AP) for Judicial Review (Northern
Ireland)
UKSC 2014/0017
VB (Appellant) v
Westminster Magistrates' Court (Respondent)
UKSC 2014/0103
Lord Kerr
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge
Lord Kerr
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge
Lady Hale
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge
Lady Hale
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge
Lord Neuberger
Lord Hughes
Lord Toulson
Granted
9 Apr 2014
Granted
9 Apr 2014
Refused
14 Apr 2014
Refused
14 Apr 2014
Granted
15 Apr 2014
Permission to appeal be GRANTED on ground 2 only and in relation to counts 3
and 4
Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law.
Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law.
EN (Appellant) v
Westminster Magistrates' Court (Respondent)
UKSC 2014/0112
CM (Appellant) v
Westminster Magistrates' Court (Respondent)
UKSC 2014/118
CU (Appellant) v
Westminster Magistrates' Court (Respondent)
UKSC 2014/0119

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Appellant) v
Tolley (Deceased acting by her personal
representative) (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0252
Commissions for Her Majesty's Revenue and
Customs (Respondent) v
The Rank Group PLC (Appellant)
UKSC 2013/0257
Rowley and another ( Appellant) v
The Royal Bank of Scotland (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0239
R (on the application of Peter Evans)
(Appellant) v Basingstoke and Deane Borough
Council and Another (Respondents)
UKSC 2013/0277
Lord Mance
Lord Carnwath
Lord Hodge
Lord Neuberger
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Wilson
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Lord Mance
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Granted
15 Apr 2014
Granted
16 Apr 2014
Refused
16 Apr 2014
Refused
16 Apr 2014
Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law.
Permission to appeal be refused because
(1) In relation to any points other than those falling within paragraph (2) below, the
application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance
which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time bearing in
mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed
on appeal.
(2) In relation to the points of European Union law said to be raised by or in
response to the application it is not necessary to request the Court of Justice to
give any ruling, because
a) the Court’s existing jurisprudence already provides a sufficient answer;
b) the answer is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt;
c) procedure, including a time limit for enforcement, is a matter for national
law subject to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, both here
clearly satisfied; section 191(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(“the 1990 Act”) is the legitimate concomitant of the expiry of a legitimate
time limit (see Case C-98/04 Commission v United Kingdom, paragraph 20); and,
on that basis, there can be no obligation on the Respondent to take action
under section 102 of the 1990 Act.