Visit UKSCAll cases
926 Cases
JCPC/2025/0065/A
•
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: 12 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0004
•
TORT
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Is there a duty on an Attorney-at-Law to look behind a foreign power of attorney which is regular on its face and satisfies the relevant statutory provisions, and contains no express requirement on its face to look behind it?
Last updated: 12 March 2026
JCPC/2024/0031
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment scheduledCase summary:1): Did the courts below find as a fact that the fuel from the 2012 leak migrated to the respondent’s land and contaminated it? (2): Is it a precondition to liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher that the defendant be in occupation of the land from which the dangerous thing escapes? (3): Is the storage of fuel underground a "non-natural use of land" for the purposes of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher? (4): Did the Court of Appeal err in its assessment of damages?
Last updated: 12 March 2026
JCPC/2019/0089
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:This appeal concerns claims brought by the appellant, Primeo Fund (In Official Liquidation) (Primeo), against the respondents for breach of their contractual duties. The claims arise in the context of the fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council allowed Primeo's appeal in relation to the application of the reflective loss rule to the extent explained in its judgment dated 9 August 2021. The Board is now asked to decide the remaining issues on Primeo's appeal and also decide the respondents' cross-appeal/additional grounds for upholding the decision below.
Last updated: 12 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0086
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal grantedCase summary:Are the Appellants’ convictions and sentences for murder unsafe in circumstances of an alleged plea deal on the part of an accomplice whose evidence was uncorroborated?
Last updated: 11 March 2026
JCPC/2026/0017
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 11 March 2026
JCPC/2022/0049
•
CRIME
Judgment givenCase summary:On 13 March 2014, the appellants were convicted of the murder of Clive "Lizard" Williams. The issue in this appeal is whether their convictions are safe in light of the following grounds of challenge: 1. Should the trial judge have excluded the telecommunications evidence relied on by the prosecution? 2. How should the judge have handled the allegations that there were attempts to bribe members of the jury during the trial? Should the jury have been discharged? 3. Was the judge wrong to invite the jury to reach a verdict late in the day, given the special circumstances of the case?
Last updated: 11 March 2026
JCPC/2022/0027
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:What is the correct interpretation and application of a formula relating to participation in a profit-sharing scheme. Whether the trial Judge was correct in his award of interest for a period that was longer than originally claimed for by the Respondent in the Fixed Date Claim Form.Whether the Appellant acted in bad faith in declaring that the profit-sharing scheme was not triggered.
Last updated: 11 March 2026
JCPC/2022/0074
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether Mauritius Telecom and Cellplus are liable for acts of alleged unfair competition for breaches of (i) the conditions of Cellplus' mobile phone services licence for operations in Mauritius and (ii) conducting a mobile phone services business prior to the issue of this licence.Whether the Information and Communication Technologies Authority is jointly liable for tolerating these breaches or whether it cannot be held liable in tort as it has no distinct legal personality.
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 11 March 2026
JCPC/2022/0073
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether Mauritius Telecom and Cellplus are liable for acts of alleged unfair competition for breaches of (i) the conditions of Cellplus' mobile phone services licence for operations in Mauritius and (ii) conducting a mobile phone services business prior to the issue of this licence.Whether the Information and Communication Technologies Authority is jointly liable for tolerating these breaches or whether it cannot be held liable in tort as it has no distinct legal personality.
Linked casesLast updated: 11 March 2026
JCPC/2024/0102
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:For the purposes of establishing ownership of a property, does section 16(1) of the Registration of Deeds Act mean that a deed which is registered earlier takes priority over a deed which is registered later, even if the former was executed after the latter?
Last updated: 10 March 2026
JCPC/2026/0016
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 10 March 2026
JCPC/2020/0027
•
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the conviction was unsafe and a serious miscarriage of justice as a result of: - The alleged failings of the Judge in his summing up; - Alleged breaches of section 10(1) of the Constitution which protects the right to a fair hearing; - Certain evidence given by witnesses not under oath; - The alleged errors made by the Judge when directing the jury in relation to R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8; - An alleged breach of principles of equality and fairness in section 1 of the Constitution by virtue of the way the Appellant was charged in comparison with his co-Defendants; - Whether the Appellant received an adequate reduction in the length of sentence in light of the breach of his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Last updated: 10 March 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: 10 March 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: 10 March 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.