Visit UKSCAll cases
826 Cases
JCPC/2025/0065
•
NEGLIGENCE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 14 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0014
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the courts below fail properly to consider all the evidence in: (1) granting a mortgagee an order for vacant possession over a defaulting mortgagor’s property; and (2) ordering the mortgagor to pay a sum into court before granting an extension of time for permission to appeal that vacant possession order?
Last updated: 11 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0064
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 11 July 2025
JCPC/2023/0114
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that (i) there was no binding agreement to pay an additional sum under the contract for services in the absence of approval by the Respondent’s board, and (ii) in the alternative, there was no consideration for a separate agreement to pay the additional sum?
Last updated: 10 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0063
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 10 July 2025
JCPC/2023/0109
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:In what circumstances are Commissioners to a Commission of Enquiry required to give notice to individuals that it intends to criticise them in its report?
Last updated: 10 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0027
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Whether, in substituting a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for a sentence of 3 years’ penal servitude, the Supreme Court of Mauritius: i) failed to give due consideration to the principles of proportionality and parity; and ii) breached the Appellant’s constitutional rights. (2) Whether the mandatory minimum sentence of penal servitude that a convicted person can be sentenced to under section 30(1)(f)(i) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, coupled with section 47(4), is unconstitutional.
Last updated: 10 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0053
•
INSOLVENCY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Appellant did not have standing to pursue an appeal.
Last updated: 10 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0062
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 9 July 2025
JCPC/2023/0091
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err by disturbing the trial Judge’s share valuation methodology?
Last updated: 9 July 2025
JCPC/2024/1003
•
TAX
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 8 July 2025
JCPC/2024/1004
•
EMPLOYMENT
Appeal issuedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the Industrial Court’s ruling that the Appellant is the successor to British West Indian Airways and therefore bound to recognise the Respondent as one of its recognised majority unions under the Industrial Relations Act?
Last updated: 8 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0043
•
INSOLVENCY
Appeal issuedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err (1) by concluding that the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius had granted the Appellant leave under section 154(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act to continue the Plaint in the name and on behalf of the Respondent; and (2) by failing to treat the application as one to enable the Appellant to apply under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and section 174(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act for leave to continue the Plaint as a derivative claim?
Linked casesLast updated: 7 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0044
•
INSOLVENCY
Appeal issuedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err (1) by concluding that the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius lacked jurisdiction to grant leave for the Appellant to continue the Plaint as a derivative claim in the name and on behalf of the Respondent; (2) by holding that the application could not be granted ex parte; and (3) if the application could be granted ex parte, by failing to consider that no prejudice was thereby caused to the Respondent?
Linked casesLast updated: 7 July 2025
JCPC/2025/0048
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Appeal issuedCase summary:Is the mortgage agreement between the parties void or voidable on the basis of (i) total failure of consideration or (ii) mistake or frustration? Did the respondent bank have a duty to deliver good and marketable title? Did the instructed attorneys act for the bank such that the bank ought to sue them rather than the appellant for negligence in failing to report on title defects?
Last updated: 7 July 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.