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.

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.

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.

The Chagos Islanders challenged Orders in Council made in 2004 that prevented them from returning to the Chagos Archipelago after their removal in the 1960s and 1970s. By three to two the House of Lords held that Orders in Council for an overseas territory are subject to judicial review but that the 2004 Orders were lawful. The case is the leading authority on the reviewability of prerogative legislation.

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.

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.

An animal welfare group challenged the statutory ban on paid political advertising on television and radio, after its advertisement was refused. The House of Lords held the ban compatible with the right to freedom of expression, relying on the care with which Parliament had considered the matter. The case is important for the weight courts give to parliamentary scrutiny of rights.

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.

Spanish-owned fishing companies challenged Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 as contrary to Community law and sought interim relief suspending it. The House of Lords held that English law gave the courts no power to grant interim relief against the Crown or to suspend an Act, but referred to the European Court the question whether Community law required it. This is the first stage of the Factortame litigation on the status of Community law against later Acts.