Visit UKSCAll cases
949 Cases
JCPC/2022/0064
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) What is the legal effect of the Appellants' failure to claim the Surveyed Land during the Land Registration and Titling Project in Saint Lucia in mid-1987 on the Appellants' claim to overriding interests under sections 23 and 28 of the Land Registration Act 1984 (the "LRA")? (2) Is the period before first registration required to be ignored for the purposes of identifying an overriding interest under section 28(f) of the LRA? (3) Ought the Court of Appeal have held that the Respondent acquired Parcel 1020B 227 subject to the Appellants' right to defend a possession claim because the Appellants had an overriding interest under section 28(f) of the LRA because they had "rights acquired or in the process of being acquired by virtue of any law relating to the limitation of actions or by prescription" as at the date of first registration. (4) Are, on the basis of the Court of Appeal's findings of fact, the Appellants entitled to a declaration that they had a positive prescription right to the Surveyed Land based on at least 30 years' occupation? (5) Whether the Appellants' counterclaim should be remitted and the relief and costs ordered against them set aside?
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2021/0099
•
CONSTITUTIONS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the law of sedition in Trinidad and Tobago imposes disproportionate and unjustified restrictions on, inter alia, free speech, including freedom of thought and expression and the freedom to express political views, so as to render it unconstitutional - what amounts to "an existing law" in the general savings clause in section 6(1) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2022/0057
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:In respect of a claim of malicious prosecution, did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court was entitled to find that the Appellant had failed to lead the evidence necessary to establish: (a) that the prosecution of the Appellant had been instituted without reasonable and probable cause; and (b) that the prosecution was actuated by malice?
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2021/0016
•
CRIME
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Whether a charge of conspiracy to murder can lawfully be pursued against a single defendant where those charges were discontinued against the alleged co-conspirators before her trial; (2) Whether the Appellant in this case ought to have been entitled to rely on the defence of duress: (i) Whether a person who is coerced into joining a conspiracy can be said to have been party to the necessary agreement; (ii) Whether the defence of duress applies to conspiracy to murder; (iii) Whether the defence of duress arises in the Appellant's case sufficiently to render her conviction unsafe. (3) Whether the Appellant's custodial sentence (35 years) is wrong in principle or law or unduly severe.
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2019/0067
•
TAX
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Appellant was liable to account for and pay VAT in respect of hotel bookings made by tour operators, where the tour operator has paid for the hotel room booking (including VAT) but has failed to sell that booking to a consumer, such that no person eventually occupies the room on the night(s) it has been booked.
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0037
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0018
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Appeal issuedCase summary:Whether the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (“CA”) erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the consequential orders of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (“SC”) on the grounds that the trial judge failed to discharge his judicial duties by adopting the submissions of the respondent.
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2021/0013
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that (a) it was entitled to set aside factual findings made by the High Court or (b) the High Court's findings were invalid due to bias?
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0036
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0043
•
INSOLVENCY
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err (1) by concluding that the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius had granted the Appellant leave under section 154(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act to continue the Plaint in the name and on behalf of the Respondent; and (2) by failing to treat the application as one to enable the Appellant to apply under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and section 174(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act for leave to continue the Plaint as a derivative claim?
Linked casesLast updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2024/0088
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in: (a) Finding the Appellant acted unreasonably in failing to consider the Respondent for promotion? (b) Finding that the Appellant’s decision of 21 April 2015 was arrived at by a process outside of that prescribed by the Public Service Commission Regulations? (c) Finding no interference between Regulation 8 of the Fire Service (Terms and Conditions of Employment) Regulations 1998 and section 121 and 129 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. (d) Holding that Regulation 8 is non-binding on the Appellant unless and until specifically adopted and incorporated into the Public Service (Commission) Regulation. (e) making findings as to the role of the Chief Personnel Officer without affording them an opportunity to be heard. (f) Not placing sufficient weight on the Board’s decisions in The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue v Finbar Boland and ors [2023] UKPC 27 and Ramsahai v Teaching Service Commission [2011] UKPC 26? (g) finding that if there had been a claim for constitutional relief, and a breach of a constitutional right has been found, it should not matter that the breach found is not the particular breach in respect of which the claim is made? (h) finding that there was a breach of the Respondent’s right to protection of the law under section 4(b) of the Constitution, in circumstances where the Respondent did not claim such relief.
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2024/0087
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in: (a) Finding the Appellant acted unreasonably in failing to consider the Respondent for promotion? (b) Finding that the Appellant’s decision of 21 April 2015 was arrived at by a process outside of that prescribed by the Public Service Commission Regulations? (c) Finding no interference between Regulation 8 of the Fire Service (Terms and Conditions of Employment) Regulations 1998 and section 121 and 129 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. (d) Holding that Regulation 8 is non-binding on the Appellant unless and until specifically adopted and incorporated into the Public Service (Commission) Regulation. (e) making findings as to the role of the Chief Personnel Officer without affording them an opportunity to be heard. (f) Not placing sufficient weight on the Board’s decisions in The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue v Finbar Boland and ors [2023] UKPC 27 and Ramsahai v Teaching Service Commission [2011] UKPC 26? (g) finding that if there had been a claim for constitutional relief, and a breach of a constitutional right has been found, it should not matter that the breach found is not the particular breach in respect of which the claim is made? (h) finding that there was a breach of the Respondent’s right to protection of the law under section 4(b) of the Constitution, in circumstances where the Respondent did not claim such relief.
Linked casesLast updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0044
•
INSOLVENCY
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err (1) by concluding that the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius lacked jurisdiction to grant leave for the Appellant to continue the Plaint as a derivative claim in the name and on behalf of the Respondent; (2) by holding that the application could not be granted ex parte; and (3) if the application could be granted ex parte, by failing to consider that no prejudice was thereby caused to the Respondent?
Linked casesLast updated: 11 May 2026
JCPC/2022/0067
•
CONSTITUTIONS
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in its assessment of the alleged breaches of the Appellants' constitutional rights?
Last updated: 10 May 2026
JCPC/2022/0028
•
TAX
Judgment givenCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the minimum requirements for an acting appointment to Field Auditor III include that the officer possess a professional accountancy qualification?
Last updated: 10 May 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.