Advertisement

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: A Selective Tribunal with the Final Say on Most Matters

  • Neil AndrewsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 59)

Abstract

The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are binding on all lower civil and criminal courts in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, and on Scottish civil courts if the appeal emanates from Scotland. The Court decides fundamental questions concerning judge-made law (the ‘Common Law’) and questions arising from statute, including human rights legislation. The Court is not overwhelmed because it must give permission for a case to proceed to this final chamber. The main challenge facing the court is to write shorter judgments which are easier to apply.

Keywords

Appellate Court Trial Judge Privy Council Judicial Assistant Judicial Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. American Law Institute, UNIDROIT’S Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Andenas, M. & Fairgrieve, D., ‘Simply a Matter of Style? Comparing Judicial Decisions’, Euro Business Law Review, 2014, p. 361–390.Google Scholar
  3. Andenas, M. & Vogenauer, S. (eds.), The Form of Judgment, Oxford: Hart, 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, N., ‘The Passive Court and Legal Argument’, Civil Justice Quarterly 1988, Vol. 7, p. 125–140.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, N., Principles of Civil Procedure, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, N., The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court: Three Sceptical Reflections Concerning the New Court’, Utah Law Review, 2011a, Vol. 22, p. 9–24.Google Scholar
  7. Andrews, N., ‘The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court: Four Hopes (Individual Modesty; Institutional Neutrality; A Diverse Case Load; Clear and Succinct Judgments)’, Annuario di Diritto Comparato e di Studi Legislativi, 2011b, Vol. 1, p. 129–154.Google Scholar
  8. Andrews, N., ‘Judicial Decisions and the Duty to Give Reasons: the English Experience’, in Tichý, L., Holländer, P. & Bruns, A. (eds.), The Judicial Opinion, Prague: Editor, ediční řady, 2011, p. 49–70.Google Scholar
  9. Andrews, N., ‘The United Kingdom Supreme Court: A Final Appellate Court Created in Haste and Without Manifest Need’, in Besso, C. & Chiarloni, S. (eds.), Problemi e Prospettive delle Corti Supreme, Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane Spa, 2012, p. 107–120.Google Scholar
  10. Andrews, N., Andrews on Civil Processes. Court Proceedings, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Intersentia, 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Arden, M., ‘Judgment Writing: Are Shorter Judgments Achievable?’, Law Quarterly Review, 2012, Vol. 128, p. 515–535.Google Scholar
  12. Bell, J., Judiciaries within Europe: A Comparative Review, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. Bingham, T., ‘The Evolving Constitution’, Euro Human Rights Law Review, 2002, p. 1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Bingham, T., ‘The Old Order Changeth’, Law Quarterly Review, 2006, Vol. 122, p. 211–225.Google Scholar
  15. Blom-Cooper, L., ‘1966 and All That: The Story of the Practice Statement’, in Blom-Cooper, L., Dickson, B. & Drewry, G. (eds.), The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 129–144.Google Scholar
  16. Blom-Cooper, L., ‘Style of Judgments’, in Blom-Cooper, L., Dickson, B. & Drewry, G. (eds.), The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 145–163.Google Scholar
  17. Blom-Cooper, L., Dickson, B. & Drewry, G. (eds.), The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. Cooke, R., ‘The Law Lords: An Endangered Heritage’, Law Quarterly Review, 2003, Vol. 119, p. 49–67.Google Scholar
  19. Dickson, B., ‘The Processing of Appeals in the House of Lords’, Law Quarterly Review, 2007, Vol. 123, 571–601.Google Scholar
  20. Duxbury, N., ‘Lord Radcliffe Out of Time’, Cambridge Law Journal, 2010, Vol. 68, p. 41–70.Google Scholar
  21. Feldman, D., ‘Human Rights’, in Blom-Cooper, L., Dickson, B. & Drewry, G. (eds.), The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 541–573.Google Scholar
  22. Hale, B., ‘A New Supreme Court for the United Kingdom’, Legal Studies, 2004, Vol. 24, p. 36–55.Google Scholar
  23. Hale, B., ‘A Supreme Judicial Leader’, in Andenas, M. & Fairgrieve, D. (eds.), Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 209–220.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, J.W., ‘Towards Principles of Overruling…’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1990, Vol. 10, p. 135–150.Google Scholar
  25. Harris, B., ‘Final Appellate Courts Overruling Their Own “Wrong” Precedents: The Ongoing Search for Principle’, Law Quarterly Review, 2002, Vol. 118, p. 408–430.Google Scholar
  26. Ho, H.L., ‘The Judicial Duty to Give Reasons’, Legal Studies, 2000, Vol. 20, p. 42–65.Google Scholar
  27. Jolowicz, J.A., ‘Da mihi factum dabo tibi jus: A Problem of Demarcation in English and French Law’, in Jolowicz, J.A., On Civil Procedure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 185–204.Google Scholar
  28. Kirby, M., ‘Reasons for Judgment’, Australian Bar Review, 1994, Vol. 12, p. 121–135.Google Scholar
  29. Lasser, M., Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  30. Le Sueur, A. (ed.), Building the UK’s New Supreme Court: National and Comparative Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. Lord Neuberger, ‘Insolvency, Internationalism, and Supreme Court Judgments’, 2009, available at: <www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/-Speeches/mr-speech-insolvency-law-dinner-11112009.pdf>.
  32. Lord Radcliffe, ‘Law and Order’, Law Society Gazette, 1964, Vol. 61, p. 820–824.Google Scholar
  33. Lord Rodger, ‘The Form and Language of Judicial Opinions’, Law Quarterly Review, 2002, Vol. 118, p. 226–247.Google Scholar
  34. Malleson, K., ‘Judicial Reform: The Emergence of the Third Branch of Government’, in McDonald, A. (ed.), Reinventing Britain: Constitutional Change under New Labour, 3rd edn., London: Tottel, 2007, p. 133–150.Google Scholar
  35. Mann, F.A., ‘Fusion of the Legal Professions’, Law Quarterly Review, 1977, Vol. 93, p. 367–390.Google Scholar
  36. McKendrick, E., ‘The Common Law at Work: The Saga of Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd’, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 2003, Vol. 3(2), p. 145–180.Google Scholar
  37. Montrose, J.L., ‘Reasoned Judgment’, Modern Law Review, 1958, Vol. 21, p. 80–100.Google Scholar
  38. Morgan, D. (ed.), Constitutional Innovation: The Creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, London: LexisNexis, 2004.Google Scholar
  39. Munday, R., ‘“All for One and One for All”: The Rise to Prominence of the Composite Judgment within the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal’, Cambridge Law Journal, 2002, Vol. 61, p. 321–350.Google Scholar
  40. Munday, R., ‘Judicial Opinion and Dissenting Opinions: a Paean to Dissent’, in Tichý, L., Holländer, P. & Bruns, A. (eds.), The Judicial Opinion, Prague: Editor ediční řady, 2011, p. 546–576.Google Scholar
  41. Neuberger, D., ‘The Supreme Court: Is the House of Lords “Losing Part of Itself”’, 2009; available at: <www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/speeches/index.-htm>.
  42. Oliver, D., Constitutional Reform in the UK, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  43. Shapiro, D., ‘In Defense of Judicial Candor’, Harvard Law Review, 1987, Vol. 100, p. 731–755.Google Scholar
  44. Shetreet, S., ‘The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law…’, Chicago Journal of International Law, 2009, Vol. 10, p. 275–332.Google Scholar
  45. Stevens, R., The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution, Oxford: Hart, 2002.Google Scholar
  46. Steyn, J., ‘The Case for a Supreme Court’, Law Quarterly Review, 2002, Vol. 118, p. 382–398.Google Scholar
  47. Taggart, M., ‘Should Canadian Judges be Legally Required to give Reasoned Decisions in Civil Cases?’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 1983, Vol. 33, p. 1–20.Google Scholar
  48. Tichý, L., Holländer, P. & Bruns, A. (eds.), The Judicial Opinion, Prague: Editor ediční řady, 2011.Google Scholar
  49. Tunc, A. & Touffait, A., ‘Pour une motivation plus explicite des décisions de justice notamment celles de la Cour de cassation’, Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 1974, Vol. 78, p. 487–500.Google Scholar
  50. Vallance White, J., ‘The Judicial Office’, in Blom-Cooper, L., Dickson, B. & Drewry, G. (eds.), The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 30–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Clare CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations