Visit UKSCAll cases
940 Cases
JCPC/2020/0091
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Judgment givenCase summary:Was the Supreme Court of the Bahamas (upheld by the Court of Appeal) right to hold (a) that the executor of an estate did not have the relevant power to transfer a property to the appellant; and (b) the counterclaim seeking that declaration was not time-barred?
Last updated: 16 April 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: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0021
•
COMMERCIAL
Appeal issuedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that certain payments from EHL to EIC should be credited against the liability of Mr Flowers to pay equitable compensation for dishonest breaches of fiduciary duty and/or damages for breaches of common law?
Linked casesLast updated: 16 April 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: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2019/0118
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting hearing dateCase 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: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2022/0040
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius was wrong to hold that the Commission conducted a fair inquiry and did not breach the requirements of natural justice owed to the appellant in the conduct of the inquiry. Whether the Commission Report contained findings against the appellant or only comments and observations.
Last updated: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2023/0044
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Did the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas err in setting aside a judge's finding that the respondent, the owner of a marina, owed the owner of a yacht a duty of care to take reasonable measures to keep the yacht reasonably safe from theft? (2) If there was such a duty of care, does a judge's finding that the duty was breached stand?
Last updated: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0015
•
TAX
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 16 April 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: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0063
•
NEGLIGENCE
Hearing listedCase summary:These appeals concern allegations of clinical negligence following Aeden’s birth. The issues raised for the JCPC’s consideration all concern findings of fact in relation to the cause of Aeden’s cerebral palsy. In Dr Abdulla’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0063), and in Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s cross-appeal (JCPC/2025/0065/A) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to reverse the High Court’s finding of fact as to the timing of Dr Abdulla’s arrival? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that causation was inevitably proved against Dr Abdulla, if it was proved that he arrived at 4am? In Aeden Balwah’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0065) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the High Court’s finding that it had not been proved that Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s breach of duty caused Aeden Balwah’s cerebral palsy?
Linked casesLast updated: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0047
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Appeal issuedCase summary:Is there a binding agreement for the grant of a lease?
Last updated: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0074
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase summary:1) Was the President’s Proclamation No 8 of 2011 of a state of public emergency contrary to the Constitution and therefore unlawful? 2) Were the Regulations issued under this Proclamation justified by reference to the state of public emergency? 3) If so, were the arrests and detentions of the appellants under these Regulations nonetheless unlawful?
Linked casesLast updated: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0073
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase summary:1) Was the President’s Proclamation No 8 of 2011 of a state of public emergency contrary to the Constitution and therefore unlawful? 2) Were the Regulations issued under this Proclamation justified by reference to the state of public emergency? 3) If so, were the arrests and detentions of the appellants under these Regulations nonetheless unlawful?
Linked casesLast updated: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0072
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase summary:1) Was the President’s Proclamation No 8 of 2011 of a state of public emergency contrary to the Constitution and therefore unlawful? 2) Were the Regulations issued under this Proclamation justified by reference to the state of public emergency? 3) If so, were the arrests and detentions of the appellants under these Regulations nonetheless unlawful?
Linked casesLast updated: 16 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0095
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase summary:Do sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986 (the “Act”) repeal and re-enact sections 59, 60 and 61 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1925 and so fall within section 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (the “Constitution”)? Do sections 13 and 16 of the Act infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed by section 4 of the Constitution? Are sections 13 and 16 of the Act reasonably justifiable, in whole or in part, in a society which has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual?
Last updated: 16 April 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.