Visit UKSCAll cases
982 Cases
JCPC/2025/0031/A
•
CRIME
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(1) In respect of the appeal, did the Court of Appeal err in finding: (i) that there was no case to answer because no documents were properly admitted as evidence? (ii) a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the prosecution had shown documents to the jury that had not been tendered into evidence? (2) In respect of the cross-appeal, did the Court of Appeal err in failing to acquit the Respondent under section 39(2) of the Supreme Court Act?
Linked casesLast updated: 26 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0031
•
CRIME
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding: (i) that there was no case to answer because no documents were properly admitted as evidence? (ii) a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the prosecution had shown documents to the jury that had not been tendered into evidence?
Linked casesLast updated: 26 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0095
•
CONSTITUTION
Awaiting judgmentCase 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: 26 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0050
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:The case raises the following issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err in reversing the finding that the Respondent had not proved documentary title in respect of the contested property? May the courts rely on section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to require the Respondent to deduce title beyond her 1963 Conveyance? (2) Did the Court of Appeal wrongly interfere with the finding that the Appellant had proved intention to possess? Does section 38 of the Limitation Act 1995 apply in the present circumstances? (3) If the Respondent has documentary title and the Appellant has possessory title in respect of the property, does the former, even if defective, constitute better title than the latter in a claim in trespass?
Last updated: 26 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0045
•
CRIME
Hearing listedCase summary:What is required to commit the criminal offence of “wilfully and unlawfully organise the importation of dangerous drugs into Mauritius”, contrary to section 30(1)(a)(b)(ii) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 2000 (“the DDA”)?
Linked casesLegal Issue
Last updated: 24 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0044
•
CRIME
Hearing listedCase summary:What is required to commit the criminal offence of “wilfully and unlawfully organise the importation of dangerous drugs into Mauritius”, contrary to section 30(1)(a)(b)(ii) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 2000 (“the DDA”)?
Linked casesLast updated: 24 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0063
•
NEGLIGENCE
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 24 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0065/A
•
NEGLIGENCE
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 24 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0065
•
NEGLIGENCE
Awaiting judgmentCase 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: 24 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0059
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Appeal issuedCase summary:(1) Was it unlawful to collect taxes and remit these taxes towards a fund for the compensation of victims of uninsured drivers in circumstances where this fund was not lawfully established? (2) Did collecting taxes and remitting them towards the fund for the compensation of victims of uninsured drivers in circumstances where this fund was not lawfully established breach the first appellant’s legitimate expectation that taxes would only be applied in accordance with the purposes of the Miscellaneous Taxes Act Chap 77:01? (3) Did the failure to establish a scheme for the compensation of the victims of uninsured drivers breach the second appellant’s legitimate expectation that such a scheme would be established? (4) Was it unreasonable for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago not to take steps to establish a compensation fund for the victims of uninsured drivers?
Last updated: 23 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0042
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Should the appellant’s sentence for drug offences have been reduced on the basis that he had provided information which had resulted in the identification and arrest of another offender?
Last updated: 23 July 2026
JCPC/2023/0087
•
CONSTITUTION
Judgment scheduledCase 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: 23 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0069
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 23 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0068
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 22 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0067
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 22 July 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.