Visit UKSC
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
This is the final court of appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It also serves those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to His Majesty in Council or, in the case of republics, to the Judicial Committee.
The Court is closed for the remainder of the day
LISTINGS
Upcoming
- AB (a minor, by their father and next friend) (Appellant) v Minister for Education (Respondent) (Bermuda)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
11 November 2026
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Burrows,
Lady Simler
Whether the mandatory testing regime 1. breached the Appellant's constitutional right to not be searched without his consent; 2. were not based on lawful authority; 3. breached the principle of legality.
- The Czech Republic (Appellant) v Diag Human SE and another (Respondents) No 2
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
23 November 2026
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Burrows,
Lord Doherty
Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?
Linked cases
- Risk Reduction International Ltd (Appellant) v Absa Bank (Mauritius) Ltd (Respondent) (Mauritius)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
1 December 2026
Lord Briggs,
Lord Burrows,
Lady Rose,
Lord Doherty,
Lord Snowden
Did the courts below err in finding that the Appellant unreasonably failed to mitigate its loss? If the courts below were correct to find that the defendant unreasonably failed to mitigate its loss, did that failure arise: (1) on 31 January 2012, when the Appellant instructed the Respondent to reconvert the money in its account from US dollars into South African Rands (as the Commercial Division found), or (2) on 1 March 2012, owing to the Appellant’s failure to direct that the money in its account be converted into US dollars (as the Court of Civil Appeal found)?
- R (on the application of BYL (by their litigation friend BAU)) and another (Appellants) v Chancellor of the Exchequer and others (Respondents)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
1 December 2026
Lord Sales,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Stephens,
Lady Simler
In 2025 the government introduced VAT on private school fees. The appellants are religious private schools, their pupils, and their pupils’ parents. Was the introduction of VAT on private school fees compatible with the appellants’ right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, and to education under Article 2 of Protocol 2 of the Convention?
Linked cases
- R (on the application of Emmanuel School (Derby) Limited T/A Emmanuel School and others) (Appellants) v Chancellor of the Exchequer and others (Respondents)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
1 December 2026
Lord Sales,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Stephens,
Lady Simler
In 2025 the government introduced VAT on private school fees. The appellants are religious private schools, their pupils, and their pupils’ parents. Was the introduction of VAT on private school fees compatible with the appellants’ right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, and to education under Article 2 of Protocol 2 of the Convention?
Linked cases
THINGS TO DO
Take a tour of the Court
We offer a range of tours to suit individuals and groups, including in-person and virtual tours.
Exhibitions and events
Find out what's on, including our permanent exhibition about the history and work of the Court.
SPEECHES
LATEST JUDGMENTS
21 September 2026
Carla Anita Cecilia Braynen Turnquest (Respondent) v Water and Sewerage Corporation (Appellant) (Bahamas)16 September 2026
Francis (Appellant) v Attorney General of St Helena for and on behalf of the Crown (Respondent) (St Helena)28 August 2026
Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Respondent) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co Limited (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)- Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) and another (Respondents) v Marwan Ahmad Alsayed Abdulla (Appellant) (Trinidad & Tobago)
- Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Appellant) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co Limited and another (Respondents) No 2 (Trinidad & Tobago)