Visit UKSCAll cases
810 Cases
JCPC/2024/0053
•
ARBITRATION
WithdrawnCase summary:Whether arbitral award to be set aside for breach of natural justice.
Last updated: 4 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0047
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 4 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0049
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 4 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0030
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err by breaching the Appellant’s fair trial rights, in failing to provide sufficient reasons and consideration to the Appellant’s submissions?
Last updated: 4 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0048
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 3 June 2025
JCPC/2024/0035
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase summary:The Cross-Appeal is advanced on four grounds. In summary, the Cross-Appellants contend that the misrepresentation claim should be governed by Bermuda law, with the result that the 3-year Georgian law limitation period should not apply, because either: (i) the Imanagement exception to the double actionability rule applies (Ground 1); or (ii) if Georgian law is to be taken into account pursuant to the double actionability rule, that should include Georgia’s choice of law rules which the Cross-Appellants contend refer actionability back to Bermudian law (Ground 2). The Cross-Appellants also contend that the misrepresentation claim was based on the same or substantially the same facts so that it was appropriate for the Chief Justice to give leave to amend the original Statement of Claim (and so defeat any Georgian law limitation defence) (Ground 3). Finally, the Cross-Appellants contend that this is an appropriate case for finding that the Cross-Appellants were induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations, notwithstanding that they may not have contemporaneously and consciously turned their minds to the specific misrepresentations that were conveyed (Ground 4).
Linked casesLast updated: 3 June 2025
JCPC/2024/0022
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase summary:CS Life advances six grounds of appeal. In summary, it argues that judgment on the contractual claims is inconsistent with the contractual documentation and that there is no scope for any fiduciary duties. In the alternative, CS Life appeals on three grounds relating to quantum. It contends that damages (i) should be assessed on the basis of the specific transactions identified as objectionable by the experts, rather than on the basis that the entire portfolio should be replaced with an alternative medium risk portfolio from the outset (Ground 4); (ii) should have been calculated from the dates the LPI Policies were entered into rather than the date the Policy Assets were transferred into the name of CS Life (Ground 5); and (iii) should only have been calculated to August 2017 (Ground 6).
Linked casesLast updated: 3 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0026
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 3 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0046
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 2 June 2025
JCPC/2023/0091
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err by disturbing the trial Judge’s share valuation methodology?
Last updated: 29 May 2025
JCPC/2023/0115
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the courts below err in finding that the respondent had not breached its duty to take reasonable care to sell a secured asset for the best price reasonably obtainable, in order to settle a debt owed by the appellants to the respondent?
Last updated: 29 May 2025
JCPC/2023/0077
•
TORT
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the trial judge’s determination that the Appellant had not established to the civil standard that his employer was liable in negligence and that there was no case to answer?
Last updated: 29 May 2025
JCPC/2024/0047
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the refusal by the Second Respondent to investigate the Appellant’s complaint of unfair dismissal by her employer, a charitable organisation, under the Labour Act (2021 Revision) breach her right to a fair hearing under section 7(1) of the Bill of Rights?
Last updated: 29 May 2025
JCPC/2024/0021
•
EMPLOYMENT
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that s.93 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act Ch. 88:08 applied to OSHA’s complaint against UWI
Last updated: 29 May 2025
JCPC/2023/0089
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err in concluding that the appellant’s grounds of appeal were not on points of law? Did the Fair Rent Tribunal err in accepting the evidence of the respondent’s valuer’s evidence? Did the Fair Rent Tribunal err by taking into account evidence of rental values from 2017?
Last updated: 29 May 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.