header-logo header-logo

16 January 2026 / Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson
Issue: 8145 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Equality , Public
printer mail-detail

The Supreme Court: 2025 in review

240099
Quieter court, louder consequences? Brice Dickson analyses the output of the Supreme Court in 2025
  • The Supreme Court issued just 49 decisions in 2025, continuing a multi-year decline in caseload, while co-authored judgments became a striking feature of the court’s work.
  • High-profile cases addressed biological sex under the Equality Act 2010, public rights on Dartmoor, fair trials in sexual offence cases, and transparency in public interest immunity claims.
  • In contrast, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered a record 57 decisions, generally faster and shorter than Supreme Court judgments.

2025 was the second year in a row during which the composition of the Supreme Court remained unchanged. However, Lord Hodge retired on the last day of the year; his position as deputy president was taken up on 1 January by Lord Sales, while his role as one of the two Scottish judges traditionally sitting on the court has been assumed by Lord Doherty, formerly a judge in the Inner House of the Court

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll