header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 February 2021 / Brice Dickson
Issue: 7918 / Categories: In court , Features , In Court , Profession
printer mail-detail

Annual report: The Supreme Court in 2020

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
37603
Brice Dickson reports on the Supreme Court in 2020
  • The Justices & judgment writing.
  • Prominent cases.
  • Institutional issues.

The Justices

At the end of 2020 the Supreme Court looked very different from how it did a year earlier. In January it acquired both a new president (Lord Reed, who was also made a life peer, replaced Lady Hale) and a new deputy president (Lord Hodge, replacing Lord Reed). As well as Lady Hale, Lords Carnwath, Wilson and Kerr all retired, the four new Justices being Lords Hamblen, Leggatt, Burrows and Stephens.

Statistical overview

In 2020 the Supreme Court gave judgment in just 53 cases, the lowest annual number to date and a considerable drop from the average of 68 cases per year. 23 of the cases had been heard by the court in 2019. It’s not clear whether Covid-19 restrictions had any bearing on the throughput of cases. The cases embraced one reference (by the attorney general for Northern Ireland) and 59 appeals (including four cross-appeals).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll