Prisoners whose cases were decided by the Parole Board without an oral hearing challenged the Board's approach. The Supreme Court held that common law procedural fairness, informed by article 5(4) of the European Convention, requires an oral hearing where facts are in dispute, where the prisoner's explanation is important or where a hearing would add value. It is a leading case on common law constitutionalism.

Entick v Carrington is the foundational case on the rule that the executive may act only with legal authority. The messengers of the King, acting under a warrant of a Secretary of State, broke into the house of Entick and seized his papers. The Court of Common Pleas held that the warrant had no basis in statute or the common law, so the officials were liable in trespass, and it rejected the argument that state necessity justified the search.

A prisoner challenged a policy requiring prisoners to be absent when their cells were searched, including when legally privileged correspondence was examined. The House of Lords held that the policy was unlawful because it interfered with the right to legal professional privilege more than was necessary. The speeches are important for the treatment of proportionality and of fundamental rights at common law.

The Supreme Court quashed the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, which required claimants to pay fees to bring claims. The Court held that access to the courts is a constitutional right protected by the common law and the rule of law, and that the Lord Chancellor had no power to make an order that effectively prevented it. The case is a leading statement of the principle of legality and of access to justice as a constitutional right.

Insurers challenged an Act of the Scottish Parliament that made pleural plaques a compensable condition, reversing a House of Lords decision. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal and held that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are not subject to common law review on grounds such as irrationality or unreasonableness, though they are subject to review under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Convention rights. The case is a leading statement on the constitutional status of the Scottish Parliament and the rule of law.

This case concerned challenges to the Government process for authorising the High Speed 2 railway by a hybrid Bill. The Supreme Court dismissed the claims, holding that the EU environmental assessment directives did not require the Government to do more than it had done. The judgment of Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance also discussed the unwritten constitution, the role of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the possibility of constitutional principles limiting even the powers of Parliament.

Traders who sold goods by imperial measures only were convicted under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 as amended by regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972. Their appeals failed. Laws LJ held that constitutional statutes such as the 1972 Act cannot be impliedly repealed, and that the doctrine of implied repeal does not apply to them.