All cases

Filters

950 Cases


  • JCPC/2026/0009

    Case summary:

    In 2004 the appellant brought proceedings against the first respondent, arguing he had adversely possessed a parcel of land. His claim succeeded and he was awarded damages. During those proceedings, he abandoned a claim for possession of the land. In 2020, he brought fresh proceedings for possession of the land against both respondents. The courts in Trinidad and Tobago struck out the appellant’s new claim as an abuse of process. Were they right to do so?

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2026/0023

    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal err in law by refusing to strike out the respondent’s claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process?

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2026/0011

    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the decision of Public Accountancy Board: (i) to remove him from the Register of Public Accountants and (ii) ordering him to pay costs to the Board in the sum of 1.6 million Jamaican dollars?

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2025/0122

    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal: 1) Err in its approach to reviewing findings of fact? 2) Misapply the law on adverse possession? 3) Fail to apply the proper evidential standard and draw the necessary inferences for allegations of fraud? 4) Fail to scrutinise the exercise of discretion? 5) Err in refusing to permit Counsel to withdraw or in refusing an adjournment?

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2025/0103

    Case summary:

    Is the First Respondent entitled to a partial tax exemption on interest income received from certain loans?

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2022/0046

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the conviction of Mr Washington for murder, attempted murder, using a firearm to commit an indictable offence and handling ammunition.

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2022/0100

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    Was the presumption of undue influence rebutted in respect of certain transfers of land to Vandyke Jude from his late father, in circumstances that Vandyke acted as his father's lawyer in respect of the transfers?

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2022/0077

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    This case is an appeal against a conviction for murder, on the following grounds: (1) Defence counsel failed to call alibi witnesses at trial; (2) The Judge failed to identify the weaknesses of the prosecution case when summing up; and (3) The Judge failed to give a good character direction to the jury on NM's behalf. The appellant, Nardis Maynard ("NM") submits that on the basis of these factors, his conviction is unsafe and should be quashed.

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2022/0005

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    (1) Were the reasons given for a Deportation Order sufficient? (2) Does the Appellant require permission from the court to bring a judicial review claim to determine the adequacy of the reasons given in the Deportation Order, or does he have an automatic right to do so?

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2019/0118

    Case summary:

    Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius was correct to find the Appellant, Mr. Stephen Anthony Aldridge, liable for having breached the Companies Act 2001 for having debited the bank account of the Respondent, Mordaunt Estates Ltd., and credited his own account for the sum of GBP 615,000.

    Last updated: 20 May 2026


  • JCPC/2022/0036

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    Were the Respondents lawfully entitled to detain the Appellant on the basis that they were arranging his deportation, and, if so, was 3 month a reasonable period? Did the Court of Appeal err in the assessment of damages and award of interest? Did the Court of Appeal err in its costs award?

    Last updated: 19 May 2026


  • JCPC/2022/0084

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    Was the Appellant's constitutional right to freedom of expression contravened? If there was an unconstitutional contravention of the Appellant's right to freedom of expression, what remedies is he entitled to?

    Last updated: 19 May 2026


  • JCPC/2023/0103

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of the Civil Asset Recovery and Management and Unexplained Wealth Act No 8 of 2019 (the “Act”) in finding that the Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order (“PUWO”) originally imposed under that Act and then set aside by the High Court could be reinstated, including as against the Estate of Sheldon Spring?

    Last updated: 19 May 2026


  • JCPC/2023/0067

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    (i) Was the Court of Appeal wrong because it did not overturn the decision of the trial judge to strike out Mr Hosein’s constitutional claim on the basis of various factors, in particular the availability of a parallel remedy and the delay in bringing proceedings? (ii) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to conclude there was no evidence of apparent bias on the part of the trial judge?

    Last updated: 19 May 2026


  • JCPC/2023/0007

    Judgment given
    Case summary:

    Did the Court of Appeal err in: - failing to apply the established case law and principles in relation to the Respondent's challenge of the DPP's decision to continue the prosecution and/or in relation to whether the criminal trial judge had sufficient and appropriate tools to deal with the Respondents' complaints; - concluding that the DPP's decision to allow the criminal trial process to deal with the Respondent's complaints was so exceptional as to be reviewable on the grounds of irrationality and/or abuse of process; - concluding that it was unnecessary to the High Court's reasoning to make a finding that the DPP's sole eyewitness had committed perjury; and - concluding that the High Court was correct to have granted leave for judicial review.

    Last updated: 19 May 2026


Sign up for case email alerts

Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.