Microsoft has failed to win permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court in the long-running legal spat with ValueLicensing after the Court of Appeal refused its application.

The US megacorp was challenging a November 2025 ruling in ValueLicensing’s favour that VL may resell pre-owned software licenses. That judgement was unambiguous, but Microsoft said at the time that it would seek permission to appeal.

That request was rejected last week in blunt terms. No reasons were given for the refusal, just the words “It is ordered that the application is refused.”

It isn’t quite the end of the road. Microsoft could apply to the Supreme Court itself, but it would need to file within 28 days and show a compelling reason why the Court of Appeal was wrong to refuse its appeal.

Things are looking dicey for Microsoft in the case that started in 2021 when ValueLicensing sued Microsoft for £270 million over claims that the Windows maker choked off the supply of surplus Office licenses. Microsoft denied any wrongdoing and Instead attempted to reframe the case as a copyright dispute. The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected Microsoft’s arguments and a subsequent appeal.

A recently published Consent Order adds to the pressure. It demands documents from past and present Microsoft bosses, including a potentially explosive internal deck titled “Second-Hand Software Presentation” (SHS).

The contents of the file are unknown, but the Consent Order refers to it as a “Known Adverse Document.” It dates back to 2013, a few years after Office 365 was launched. The order also asks why Microsoft waited until the end of 2025 to disclose the document’s existence, a few years after Office 365 launched.

To add a little more spice, Alexander Wolfson is listed as an intervener on the appeal refusal. He is the proposed class representative in a separate claim filed on behalf of millions of UK customers seeking between £1.3 billion to £3.5 billion in compensation from Microsoft over its conduct regarding pre-owned licenses.

ValueLicensing and Microsoft declined to comment on the latest development.

Appeals aside, the next stage will be a Witness Statement from Microsoft explaining who knew what and when, followed by further disclosure.