Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Wikipedia contributors · CC BY-SA · EN · 04/10/2026

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (initialism: UKSC) is the final court of appeal for all civil cases in the United Kingdom and all criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as some limited criminal cases from Scotland.

Established on 1 October 2009, per the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Part 3, Section 23(1), the Court is the United Kingdom's highest appellate court for these matters, and it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. Additionally the Supreme Court hears cases on devolution matters from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As a consequence, the court must include judges from the three distinct legal systems of the United Kingdom – England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Court usually sits in the Middlesex Guildhall in Westminster, though it can sit elsewhere and has, for example, sat in the Edinburgh City Chambers, the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast, the Tŷ Hywel Building in Cardiff and the Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and no entrenched codified constitution, so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries such as India, the United States of America, Canada and Australia. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. However, as with some other courts in the UK, it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made.

Further, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court, like some other courts in the United Kingdom, may make a declaration of incompatibility, indicating that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights. Such a declaration can apply to primary or secondary legislation. The declaration does not overturn the legislation, and neither Parliament nor the government is required to agree with any such declaration. However, if they accept a declaration, ministers can exercise powers under section 10 of the Human Rights Act to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility or ask Parliament to amend the legislation.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a non-ministerial government department of the Government of the United Kingdom. Section 23 of the Constitutional Reform Act limits the number of judges on the Court to 12, though it also allows for this rule to be amended, to further increase the number of judges, if a resolution is passed in both Houses of Parliament. Most cases are decided by a panel of five of the judges (justices); in particularly important cases, the court may use a panel of eleven justices.

The Supreme Court assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which had been exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

History

Creation

The creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom was first proposed in a consultation paper published by the Department of Constitutional Affairs in July 2003. Although the paper noted that there had been no criticism of the then-current Law Lords or any indication of an actual bias, it argued that the separation of the judicial functions of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords from the legislative functions of the House of Lords should be made explicit. The paper noted the following concerns:

Whether there was any longer sufficient transparency of independence from the executive and the legislature to give assurance of the independence of the judiciary.

The requirement for the appearance of impartiality and independence limited the ability of the Law Lords to contribute to the work of the House itself, thus reducing the value to both them and the House of their membership.

It was not always understood by the public that judicial decisions of "the House of Lords" were taken by the Appellate Committee and that non-judicial members were never involved in the judgments. Conversely, it was felt that the extent to which the Law Lords themselves had decided to refrain from getting involved in political issues concerning legislation on which they might later have had to adjudicate was not always appreciated. The first President of the Court, The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, claimed that the old system confused people and that the Supreme Court would for the first time be a clear separation of powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.

Space within the House of Lords was at a constant premium and a separate supreme court would ease the pressure on the Palace of Westminster.

The main argument against a new Supreme Court was that the previous system had worked well and kept costs down. Reformers expressed concern that this second main example of a mixture of the legislative, judicial and executive might conflict with professed values under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Officials who make or execute laws have an interest in court cases that put those laws to the test. When the state invests judicial authority in those officials or even their day-to-day colleagues, it puts the independence and impartiality of the courts at risk. Consequently, it was hypothesised that closely connected decisions of the Law Lords to debates had by friends or on which the Lord Chancellor had expressed a view might be challenged on human-rights grounds on the basis that they had not constituted a fair trial.

The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, later President of the Supreme Court, expressed fear that the new court could make itself more powerful than the House of Lords committee it succeeded, saying that there is a real risk of "judges arrogating to themselves greater power than they have at the moment". The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said such an outcome was "a possibility", but was "unlikely".

The reforms were controversial and were brought forward with little consultation but were subsequently extensively debated in Parliament. During 2004, a select committee of the House of Lords scrutinised the arguments for and against setting up a new court. The Government estimated the set-up cost of the Supreme Court at £56.9 million.

Significant cases

The first case heard by the Supreme Court was HM Treasury v Ahmed, which concerned "the separation of powers", according to Phillips, its inaugural President. At issue was the extent to which Parliament has, by the United Nations Act 1946, delegated to the executive the power to legislate. Resolution of this issue depended upon the approach properly to be adopted by the court in interpreting legislation which may affect fundamental rights at common law or under the European Convention on Human Rights.

One of the most important cases presented to the Supreme Court was the joint cases of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, known as Miller/Cherry, on Boris Johnson's unlawful prorogation (suspension) of Parliament, to suppress debate in anticipation of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, "frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account". It is one of only two cases that involved the presence of 11 judges (the highest number of judges currently allowed to rule on a case). The case carried a large amount of political tension in the context of the process of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union; for some, the ruling "delighted 'Remainers' but appalled 'Leavers, although some Conservative MPs who sought to withdraw from the EU with an agreement had opposed the prorogation.

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled on whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a second independence referendum. In the case, the five-judge panel unanimously found that Scotland did not have the right to organise a referendum without the permission of Westminster, as questions around independence qualify as "reserved matters" (reserved to the central government) under the Scotland Act 1998. Nicola Sturgeon, the then-leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party, regarded the decision as "a hard pill for any supporter of independence... to swallow" but reiterated the party's commitment to "find another democratic, lawful means for Scottish people to express their will".

In 2025, the Supreme Court ruled on the meaning on the word 'woman' for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The court concluded unanimously that, the word means 'biological woman' and thus that trans women are not women for the purposes of British equality law. Accordingly, where single sex spaces have been provided for men and women respectively (such as toilets, changing rooms and sporting teams for example), trans women thus have no inherent right to access the women's space.

Jurisdiction and powers

From the Supreme Court –

The Supreme Court hears appeals (i) in England and Wales, from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and (ii) in Scotland from the Court of Session.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in relation to Scottish civil cases. However, the High Court of Justiciary is the highest court of appeal in relation to Scottish criminal cases.

The Supreme Court also determines devolution issues (as defined by the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006). These are legal proceedings about the powers of the three devolved administrations—the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Government and Senedd. Devolution issues were previously heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and most are about compliance with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, brought into national law by the Devolution Acts and the Human Rights Act 1998.

On rare occasions the court may have original jurisdiction, normally in cases relating to contempt of the Supreme Court, such as Proceedings for Contempt: Mr Tim Crosland and its appeal case HM Attorney General v Crosland.

Panels and sittings

The twelve justices do not all hear every case. Unless there are circumstances requiring a larger panel, a case is usually heard by a panel of five justices. More than five justices may sit on a panel where the case is of "high constitutional importance" or "great public importance"; if the case raises "an important point in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights"; if the case involves a conflict of decisions among the House of Lords, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or Supreme Court; or if the Court "is being asked to depart, or may decide to depart from" its (or the House of Lords') previous precedent. The composition of panels is ultimately determined by the President.

To avoid a tie, all cases are heard by a panel containing an odd number of justices. Thus, the largest possible panel for a case is 11 justices. To date, there have been only two cases (both involving matters of major constitutional importance) heard by 11 justices: the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (argued in 2016 and decided in 2017) and the cases of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (argued and decided in 2019).

Although they may wear black damask robes with gold embellishments including the supreme court badge for portraits or ceremonial occasions, the justices have never worn court dress during sittings. In November 2011, The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers allowed counsel to jointly agree to "dispense with any or all of the traditional elements of court dress" at sittings.

Administration

The Supreme Court has a separate administration from the other courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, under a Chief Executive who is appointed by the Court's president.

Judges

The court is composed of the President and Deputy President and ten other Justices of the Supreme Court, all with the style of Justice of the Supreme Court under section 23(6) of the Constitutional Reform Act. The President and Deputy President of the court are separately appointed to those roles. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is required to have judges who have previously served in the legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and act as representatives of their respective legal systems in the Supreme Court. The selection commission which selects the judges who sit in the Supreme Court is required to ensure that the court will have knowledge of, and experience of practice in, the legal system of each country of the United Kingdom. As a result of devolution in 1998, in Scotland for instance, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland is consulted on each appointment to the Supreme Court, as is the first minister of Scotland, regardless as to whether the judge being nominated is Scottish or not.

Source and attribution

Adapted from “Supreme Court of the United Kingdom” by English Wikipedia contributors. Main paragraphs and sections are retained; tables, reference markers and technical markup are omitted. This is an encyclopedic adaptation, not a personal review. Original revision and contributor history ↗. Text is shared under CC BY-SA 4.0 ↗. Check current visitor access, tickets and transport with the relevant operator.