A man who has been battling a bank for 16 years over payments for a laptop has won his Supreme Court case.
Richard Durkin bought the computer at a PC World store in Aberdeen in 1998 and signed a credit agreement with lender HFC Bank for about £1,500, the court heard.
He returned the computer the next day because it did not have an internal modem and asked for the credit agreement to be cancelled.
But HFC said he had to keep making payments and after he refused the bank issued a default notice.
Mr Durkin's name appeared on a credit 'blacklist' for several years as a result, the court heard.
The 44-year-old says he has spent around £250,000 on legal fees since his challenge began, but the Supreme Court ruled that he should be paid only £8,000 in damages after it found that he "validly" rescinded the agreement.
The Midwest US state of Missouri has executed a man convicted of killing a jewelry store owner during a 1991 robbery after the US Supreme Court denied last-minute appeals that in part challenged the drug used in the execution, the state's top lawyer said.
"After the United States Supreme Court vacated three separate stays of execution on January 29, 2014, Herbert Smulls was executed for the 1991 murder of Stephen Honickman," Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said in a statement.
Scientologist Louisa Hodkin - who wants to marry in a Church of Scientology chapel - won a Supreme Court battle today when judges ruled that the Scientology church was a "place of meeting for religious worship".
The Supreme Court will rule today on whether doctors should have been allowed to withhold treatment from a "gravely ill" man.
Liverpool guitarist David James, who was in his late 60s, died 10 months ago, shortly after the Court of Appeal decided that withdrawal of treatment would be in his best interests.
His widow May has asked the Supreme Court to overrule that decision.
The owners of a bed and breakfast who refused to let a gay couple share a room in their hotel said they found the whole situation "thoroughly regretful" but have vowed to continue their legal fight.
Hazelmary and Peter Bull are taking their appeal to the Supreme Court tomorrow after they were ordered to pay £3,600 to civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy in 2008, to the Supreme Court.
Mrs Bull told Daybreak they "clearly stated" they only allowed married, heterosexual couples to share beds in the 28 years they ran the Chymorvah Hotel in Cornwall.
For divorcees, who suspect their partners have been hiding their money in their businesses, there was an important legal ruling today.
Social Affairs Editor Penny Marshall reports:
A driver severely injured in a crash triggered by a suicidal man walking in front of a lorry failed in his bid to win criminal injuries at the Supreme Court today.
Gareth Jones claimed that Barry Hughes committed a "crime against the person" when he stepped in front of a lorry and was killed on the M25 in January 2005. The lorry that hit Mr Hughes then swerved and hit Mr Jones, who was severely injured and required full-time care.
His lawyers argued Mr Hughes could have foreseen his actions might cause harm to someone else and was guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm. They argued Mr Jones was entitled to compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The families of soldiers who have been killed in battle fought to take the human rights' fight to the Supreme Court.
Sue Smith, 51, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, whose son Private Phillip Hewett, 21, was killed seven years ago, wept outside the Court of Appeal in October and described the Ministry of Defence's attitude as "despicable".
It is just so dismissive. It 'doesn't matter': they are Action Men; if you break them, just bury them. But they are not just Action Men. People need to make a stand.
Thousands of relatives of industrial workers who died of asbestos-related lung cancer will get compensation, after a "landmark" ruling.Read the full story ›
Municipal Mutual Insurance is one of four insurance firms involved in the asbestos legal action. In a statement it said:
Whilst the ruling does not reflect MMI's favoured outcome, we welcome the clarity this judgment brings as it enables MMI to determine the extent of its liabilities... It should be noted that MMI has continued to compensate local authority employers for mesothelioma claims, despite not being obliged to pay out claims until the outcome of the case was known.