Visit UKSCAll cases
937 Cases
JCPC/2025/0062
•
COMMERCIAL
Hearing listedCase summary: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)?
Last updated: 1 April 2026
JCPC/2022/0043
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary:1. Whether the Special Tribunal is a superior court of record.2. Whether decisions of the Special Tribunal are amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court; and, if so, on what grounds and in what circumstances they may be reviewed.3. Whether, if the decision of the Special Tribunal in the present case was reviewable, it was a lawful decision; and, if not, whether it ought to be set aside.
Last updated: 1 April 2026
JCPC/2026/0003
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Does Order 6 ‘Writs of Summons: General Provisions’, rule 5 of the Grand Court Rules (“O6, r5”) require a claimant to provide a service address within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands to issue proceedings? (2) In the circumstances of the present appeal, should the appeal be heard on an ex parte basis without the participation of the respondent?
Last updated: 31 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0041
•
EMPLOYMENT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err in upholding the ruling of the Industrial Court that the termination of the appellant’s employment was justified on the ground of redundancy?
Last updated: 31 March 2026
JCPC/2021/0114
•
PASTORAL MEASURES
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether, when deciding that a scheme for the dissolution and division of a parish in the Diocese of Southwark should proceed, the Church Commissioners wrongly: (i) failed to consider whether the scheme gave rise to indirect discrimination, contrary to articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, read with article 14, insofar as the scheme would deprive a BAME-majority congregation of a BAME-led ministry; (ii) failed to have due regard to the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; (iii) failed to consider the relevance of race inequality to the scheme's purpose, namely to make better provision for "the cure of souls"; and (iv) wrongly used the scheme to penalise the incumbent reverend for perceived mismanagement.
Last updated: 30 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0015
•
TAX
Hearing listedCase summary:(1) Is an arrangement under which the appellant obtained insurance from an insurer who reinsured the risk with an entity related to the appellant, such that 95% of the premiums were ultimately received by that related entity, a transaction falling within the meaning of section 23 of the Income Tax Act, Chapter 435 (“ITA”)? (2) Is the appellant required to pay withholding tax on the premiums received by its related entity pursuant to section 66 of the ITA? (3) Are profits made by the appellant from hire-purchase agreements taxable at the time the agreements were entered into or upon receipt of the hirer’s instalments under section 9 of the ITA?
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0007
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in striking out the Appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution and/or abuse of process?
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0020
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Appeal issuedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in ruling that neither clause 11.4 nor the common law relating to public policy meant that the Icebreaker policies were void or unenforceable or otherwise provided EIC with a defence to the claims by policyholders?
Linked casesLast updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0029
•
EMPLOYMENT
Appeal issuedCase summary:Does the definition of “Annual Basic Salary” in the employment contract between the Appellant and the Respondent (and the annex to that contract) violate the End of the Year Gratuity Act 2001 (“EYGA”)?
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2024/0085
•
TORT
Hearing listedCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred by: (1) Holding the Appellants do not have a statutory right of appeal to the Privy Council. (2) Ruling that Mrs Bethel was unlawfully detained between 1 am and 3 pm on Saturday 13 December 2014; (3) Ruling that the State (or some of the appellants) are vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Bastian.
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2023/0087
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase summary:Is the Appellant’s claim against a magistrate under section 6 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1957 barred by a principle of judicial immunity and/or the Mauritian Civil Code of Procedure?
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2023/0110
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:Were the lower courts correct to find that the appellant had failed to prove that a prosecution against him for murder, in which the charges were dismissed, was commenced maliciously?
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2018/0060
•
VETERINARY SURGEONS
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Whether there were procedural failings during the appellant’s hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of the respondent (“the Committee”). (2) Whether the Committee’s findings, in particular that the appellant had acted dishonestly, were properly made.
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0004
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:Is there a duty on an Attorney-at-Law to look behind a foreign power of attorney which is regular on its face and satisfies the relevant statutory provisions, and contains no express requirement on its face to look behind it?
Last updated: 27 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0121
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the trial judge adequately address certain inconsistencies in the victim’s identification evidence or did they otherwise inappropriately direct the jury rendering the appellant’s conviction unsafe?
Last updated: 27 March 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.