Supreme Court of the UK. What it does and how cases reach it.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the highest court in the land. It sits at Middlesex Guildhall on Parliament Square in Westminster, a few minutes' walk from Big Ben. The 12 justices who work there have the final word on questions of law that affect everyone in the UK.

But "the highest court" doesn't mean it hears every appeal. Most cases never get there. Permission to appeal is rare, and the cases that do arrive are the ones that matter most: questions about constitutional law, human rights, whether the government has overstepped its powers, and disputes between regions or devolved governments.

This is what the Supreme Court actually does, how it works, and how cases reach it.

The short version

The UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. It's the only place that can overturn a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The justices are appointed for life and include the President and Deputy President. They hear about 80 to 100 cases per year, and permission to appeal is required for almost all of them. Usually three, five, or seven justices sit on a case, depending on how important it is. Their decisions are published in full and become the law that lower courts must follow.

The Supreme Court did not exist until 2009. Before that, the House of Lords did this work. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 separated the law lords from the rest of Parliament and created the Supreme Court as a distinct institution.

At a glance

History: from House of Lords to Supreme Court (2009)

Until 2009, the final court of appeal was a committee of the House of Lords. The Law Lords (senior judges elevated to the peerage) sat in the chamber of Parliament and decided the most important cases. It worked for centuries, but by the early 2000s the model looked odd: judges were part of the legislature, and the legislature's debates sometimes touched on matters those same judges might later hear.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 changed this. It was driven by a simple principle: judges should be independent from Parliament, and seen to be independent. On 1 October 2009, the UK Supreme Court opened its doors. The Law Lords left Parliament. A new, separate building was built. The role of the final court was still the same; the difference was structural and symbolic. Judges were no longer legislators.

Today the Supreme Court sits in a converted Victorian guildhall on Parliament Square. It is staffed by 12 justices, a registrar, legal officers, and administrative staff. It publishes all its judgments online. Hearings are public. The institution is younger than many people think.

What the Supreme Court actually hears

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for cases decided by the Court of Appeal (civil division or criminal division) or, in rare cases, by the High Court. It does not retry cases. It doesn't hear new evidence or question witness credibility. It asks one question: was there an error of law?

The cases it accepts tend to fall into a few categories.

Constitutional questions. Is a government power lawful under the UK constitution? Can Parliament be dissolved without a vote? Does the government have the right to suspend civil liberties? These are Supreme Court questions.

Human rights law. Cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. Does a new law breach the right to a fair trial? Is a person's freedom of expression being unreasonably restricted?

Devolution disputes. Questions about which level of government (UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, Northern Ireland Assembly) has the power to make a particular law. These disputes only the Supreme Court can settle.

Cases of public importance. Even if a case is purely private (two companies in a contract dispute, for instance), if the legal principle affects many people or develops the law in a new direction, the Supreme Court might hear it.

Criminal appeals. Cases where someone convicted of a serious crime claims the conviction was unsafe or there was a legal misdirection.

The Supreme Court receives roughly 400 to 500 applications for permission to appeal each year. It grants permission to about 80 to 100 of them. The rest are rejected, some after a brief written consideration, others after a hearing in front of a single justice.

How to get a case to the Supreme Court: the permission process

You cannot just appeal to the Supreme Court. You need permission first. Here's how that works.

Most people don't apply directly to the Supreme Court. Instead, they apply to the Court of Appeal first. If the Court of Appeal dismisses your case, your lawyer can then apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal.

To get permission, you have to satisfy one of two tests:

The "leapfrog" procedure. In rare cases, usually on points of constitutional law, a case can skip the Court of Appeal entirely. Your lawyer applies directly to the High Court for a certificate that the case is suitable for the Supreme Court. If granted, the case goes straight to the Supreme Court. This route is unusual.

The normal route. You lose in the Court of Appeal. You then apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. Your lawyer files written arguments explaining why the case raises a point of law of public importance, or why there is a real prospect the Supreme Court will allow the appeal. A single justice reads the papers. Most applications are refused at this stage. If the justice thinks it might be worth a hearing, the application goes to an oral hearing in front of three justices.

Once you have permission, your case is scheduled. There are delays. The Supreme Court runs at full capacity, and 18 months from permission to hearing is not uncommon.

What a case looks like once it arrives

When a case reaches the Supreme Court, the panel is assigned. Usually it's five justices. For very important cases about constitutional law or devolution, it might be seven or nine.

The parties exchange written "cases" (long legal documents setting out the law and arguments). Usually three to five weeks before the hearing, the court receives "skeleton arguments" summarising the issues. These are public documents.

On hearing day, the court sits in public. The lead barrister for each side stands and presents oral arguments. There are no juries. The justices ask questions from the bench. The hearing lasts between one and three days, depending on complexity.

After hearing, the justices retire to write judgments. This can take months. One justice (the one assigned to write the "leading judgment") will set out the law and explain the court's decision. The other justices may agree with that judgment completely, or they may write separate judgments agreeing with the outcome but for different reasons, or disagree entirely (a "dissent").

Once all the judgments are ready, they are delivered. The lead justice reads a summary in open court, and the full judgments are published online. These documents become part of the law of the land. Lower courts must follow them.

The 12 justices: who decides

As of 2026, the Supreme Court has 12 justices:

• The President (currently Lord Reed)
• The Deputy President (currently Lady Arden)
• 10 other justices appointed to permanent positions

All are appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of an independent judicial appointments commission. Most are QCs (King's Counsel) or highly respected judges promoted from the Court of Appeal. A few have backgrounds in human rights law, commercial law, or public law.

Women now hold four of the 12 seats. Brenda Hale was the first female President, serving 2017 to 2020. The current diversity of the court is wider than 20 years ago, though still not representative of the population.

Justices serve until age 70, though that can be extended by a year or two in some cases. The role is unpaid in the formal sense (they draw a salary from the public purse), and it is effectively a life commitment. Once appointed, a justice rarely leaves until retirement.

Landmark cases and constitutional moments

The Supreme Court has decided cases that reshaped UK law. A few stand out:

Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017). Could the Prime Minister trigger Article 50 (the formal process to leave the EU) without a vote in Parliament? The Supreme Court said no. Parliament had to vote. This was a landmark decision about the separation of powers.

Miller v The Prime Minister (2019). Could the Prime Minister suspend Parliament for five weeks without a proper reason? The Supreme Court said no. This decision overturned an act of prorogation and affirmed that even the executive cannot act arbitrarily.

A v B Bank (2006). A ruling on confidentiality and privacy law before social media existed. It shaped the principle that everyone has a right to privacy, even famous people.

R v Jogee (2016). A ruling on criminal liability when multiple people are involved in a crime. It changed the law on who can be prosecuted as an accomplice.

Pretty v United Kingdom (2002). A case about the right to die. The court ruled that while the European Convention protects life, it does not require a right to assisted suicide.

These cases show the range: constitutional questions, criminal law, human rights, and shifts in the law that affect millions of people.

Dissents and different opinions

When a justice disagrees with the majority, they may write a dissenting judgment. This judgment has no legal effect (the majority judgment is the law), but dissents matter. They become part of the legal record. Lawyers cite dissents. Future courts sometimes use a strong dissent to reconsider the majority view.

Some of the most important dissents in UK law came from Lord Wilberforce or Lord Scarman. Their dissents in cases they lost eventually shaped how the law developed. A good dissent is not wasted; it influences future legal thinking.

Day to day at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is smaller and quieter than the Court of Appeal. The building itself is modest: a Victorian guildhall, converted for judicial work. The justices have individual offices. There's a small library. Arguments are held in a public courtroom.

A justice's day is quiet during term (when cases are being heard and argued). They sit in court, listen to arguments, ask questions. Outside term, they write judgments and read papers for upcoming cases. In the months between cases, they might sit on the Judicial Appointments Commission, give lectures, or contribute to legal reform projects.

The court meets in "sittings" of a few weeks at a time, with longer breaks between. It's a measured pace, quite different from a busy trial court where multiple cases are running simultaneously.

How the Supreme Court connects to the Privy Council

A small note: many of the same justices who sit on the UK Supreme Court also sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This is a separate institution that hears final appeals from Commonwealth countries and some British Overseas Territories that have not abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council.

A case heard by the Privy Council might be decided by the same five justices who just heard a UK Supreme Court case. But it's a different court, with a different formal role (advising the Crown on Commonwealth matters). The two roles are kept separate in law, though the personnel overlap.

Common misconceptions

"The Supreme Court hears all important cases." False. It hears about 80 to 100 cases a year out of roughly 400 to 500 applications. It's selective by design. The court's role is to decide cases that change the law or raise constitutional questions, not to correct every unfair decision.

"A Supreme Court judge can overturn any law." False. The UK has Parliamentary sovereignty. No court can strike down an Act of Parliament. The Supreme Court can rule that a law is incompatible with human rights, but that is different from striking it down. Parliament then has to decide whether to amend the law.

"Supreme Court justices are elected." False. They are appointed by an independent commission and serve until retirement.

"You can appeal to the Supreme Court if you lose in the lower court." Technically yes, but permission is required, and it's refused 80 to 90 percent of the time. You can't just demand a hearing.

"The Supreme Court is political." The court does decide cases with political dimensions (devolution, human rights, government powers). But its role is to apply the law, not to make political choices. Justices are carefully selected for impartiality, and the court publishes detailed reasons for its decisions, not edicts.

Related concepts

If you're reading about Supreme Court cases, these terms come up often:

• QC (King's Counsel). A senior barrister recognised as a leader in their field. Most Supreme Court advocates are QCs.
• Permission to appeal. The formal ask to a court to hear your case. It's a gate. Most applications are refused.
• Leading judgment. The main written decision by the court. Other justices may write separate judgments agreeing or disagreeing.
• Dissent. A judgment written by a justice who disagrees with the majority decision. It has no legal effect but influences future law.
• Judicial review. A type of case in which someone challenges whether a government body has acted lawfully. Many Supreme Court cases are judicial reviews.
• Constitutional law. The law that defines how government works: Parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers, human rights.
• Prorogation. The suspension of Parliament. Famously tested in Miller v PM (2019).

Sources

The information on this page is based on:

• UK Supreme Court. Official website and case database: https://www.supremecourt.uk/
• Ministry of Justice. Guidance on the courts system: https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/the-supreme-court
• The Judiciary of England and Wales. Official information: https://www.judiciary.uk/
• Find Case Law. Open justice database of judgments: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

This page was reviewed for accuracy on 2026-05-28. UK constitutional law changes through court decisions; the Supreme Court website is the canonical source for current information.

A note on what this page is and isn't

This is information, not legal advice. It describes how the UK Supreme Court works and what it does, not what you should do if your case might reach it. If you have a case you think might be suitable for an appeal, talk to a barrister or solicitor about your chances. They can advise you on strategy, costs, and whether it's realistic to pursue an appeal.

CaseCalm helps litigants in person understand UK court procedures and draft their own documents. We are not a law firm and we are not authorised by the SRA. When your situation needs real legal advice, we point you to qualified professionals.

Written by Peter Kolomiets. Reviewed for accuracy 2026-05-28. Comments or corrections to peter@casecalm.com.