Visit UKSCAll cases
994 Cases
JCPC/2009/0021
•
Judgment given[2009] UKPC 50Case summary:The issue raised by the appeal is whether the Attorney General and/or the Statutory Authorities Services Commission (SASC) is the correct defendant in the constitutional proceedings brought by the respondent. The High Court of Trinidad and Tobago had ordered that the appellant, the Attorney General, be struck out as the defendant to constitutional proceedings, and had granted leave to the respondent to substitute the Statutory Authorities Services Commission. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision. The issue requires the consideration of whether, and/or in what circumstances, the Attorney General should be made a defendant to constitutional proceedings. This is of general importance to the law of Trinidad and Tobago.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2009/0026
•
Judgment given[2009] UKPC 49Case summary:Procedural fairness; opportunity to be heard; separation of powers.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2009/0030
•
Judgment given[2010] UKPC 2Case summary:Claim to secure the enforcement of a development agreement made in the Turks and Caicos Islands concerning the proposed mixed use development of land extending to 35 acres located at North West Point, Providenciales.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2019/0068
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2020] UKPC 25Case summary:Did Clico Bank hold US$2.8m on trust for the contractor? If not, did the contractor have a right to the money by assignment? If not, should the money be paid to NS?
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2019/0061
•
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Whether the Disciplinary Committee was entitled to find as it did; in particular, whether it had erred in its handling and analysis of evidence. (2) Whether the Disciplinary Committee had been entitled to prevent Mr Hosein from putting a document in evidence, and if not, the implications of this for the safety of its findings.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2019/0048
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to uphold the High Court’s decision that the Appellant was not in exclusive possession of the upstairs of the two-storey house and land at 21/23 Padmore Street, San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago (the "Property") and whether it is possible to have adverse possession of part of a building in Trinidad and Tobago.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2018/0068
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:In what circumstances and by whom can a licence for the selling of petrol granted by the Minister be suspended or revoked?
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2018/0021
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Is the respondent insurer entitled to recover from the appellant the sums paid to the third party:as damages for breach of the respondent's insurance policy with the appellant; as an indemnity for monies paid on behalf of the appellant; and/or pursuant to the principles of unjust enrichment?
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2018/0020
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Second Respondent had an insurable interest in the vehicle and continued to be part owner Whether any sale of the vehicle was a de facto hire purchase which made the Appellant liable as insurer Whether the agreement for sale of the vehicle without the Appellant’s consent terminated the latter’s liability to third parties and Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted ss.4(7) and 10(1) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Ch 48:51
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2016/0071
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:See judgment
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2015/0081
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary:1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Industrial Court had not exceeded its jurisdiction in making the reinstatement and compensation order, where:the Respondent did not report the worker’s alleged dismissal to the Minister as part of the certified trade dispute; the Minister did not include dismissal as an issue in dispute between the parties in his certificate dated 22 November 2007; 2. Whether the Court of Appeal deprived the Appellant of the protection of the law, by failing to find that the Industrial Court had misconstrued its powers under s. 10 of the Industrial Relations Act when it made the reinstatement and compensation order.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2019/0014
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the first instance judge gave reasons for finding the President’s refusal to reinstate the Respondent was reviewable and, if not, whether the that failure to give reasons in fact mattered. (2) Whether the President made any decision or omission in relation to the Respondent’s resignation that is capable of review. (3) Whether, in the circumstances, the President erred in law in refusing to take any steps regarding, or to accede to the Respondent’s request for, reinstatement. (4) Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal was wrong in law in holding that in any event the claim should be allowed to be pursued on public interest grounds. (5) Whether in any event it is necessary for the President, through the Attorney-General, to be a party to the Respondent’s claim.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2019/0127
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:In the context of a negligent valuation of land by the Appellant on which the Respondent bank relied to advance a loan to a third party: did the Court of Appeal err in its calculation of the loss caused to the Respondent and in its conclusion that the true valuation of the land in question should be assessed on a residential basis rather than on a commercial basis?
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2025/0088
•
NEGLIGENCE
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Did the trial judge err in dismissing LBEP’s application to permit five of its members to be added as parties to the claim and allowed to represent La Brea Environment Protectors' (“LBEP”) remaining members? Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the trial judge’s ruling?
Last updated: 4 September 2026
JCPC/2022/0050
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it is the Court of Appeal, and not the High Court, that is proper forum for appeals under section 88M of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act Ch 48:50 ("the MRTA"), from a decision to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driving permit.
Last updated: 4 September 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.