Visit UKSCAll cases
1010 Cases
JCPC/2026/0017
•
INSOLVENCY
Hearing listedCase summary:(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that the loss to an insolvent company caused by preferential payments made to a creditor includes the loss suffered by its general body of creditors? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to order the director of the company to pay equitable compensation for such loss, in circumstances where the director had not obtained any profits by the breach of their fiduciary duty? (3) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to award pre-judgment interest at 5% per annum running from 29 November 2009?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2025/0062
•
COMMERCIAL
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the courts below err in finding that the Appellant unreasonably failed to mitigate its loss? If the courts below were correct to find that the defendant unreasonably failed to mitigate its loss, did that failure arise: (1) on 31 January 2012, when the Appellant instructed the Respondent to reconvert the money in its account from US dollars into South African Rands (as the Commercial Division found), or (2) on 1 March 2012, owing to the Appellant’s failure to direct that the money in its account be converted into US dollars (as the Court of Civil Appeal found)?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2024/0068
•
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Whether the mandatory testing regime 1. breached the Appellant's constitutional right to not be searched without his consent; 2. were not based on lawful authority; 3. breached the principle of legality.
Last updated: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2026/0096
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2026/0029
•
CONSTITUTION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:What are the proper limits of the abuse-of-process doctrine in proceedings brought under section 16 of the Anguilla Constitution Order 1982 (“the Constitution”) and the legal framework governing unlawful arrest in Anguilla? In particular, (i) did the Court of Appeal impermissibly subvert the ‘Ramanoop test’ by effectively treating the mere existence of remedies at common law as an automatic bar to constitutional relief?; (ii) what is the applicable law in relation to unlawful arrests, and is PACE extended to Anguilla by virtue of section 47 of the Anguilla Criminal Procedure Act?; and (iii) was it procedurally fair to permit the abuse of process objection to be raised and determined at the remittal stage?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2026/0080
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(i) Does “obtaining” personal data under s.175(1)(c) of Data Protection Act 2004 (“DPA 2004”) include unsolicited receipt? (ii) Does s.175(3)(a) DPA 2004 impose a reverse legal burden and, if so, whether that burden is compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR?
Last updated: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2025/0095
•
CONSTITUTION
Judgment given[2026] UKPC 38Case 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: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2026/0057
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Whether, upon a proper construction of section 201(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution's election to proceed summarily in respect of an offence triable either way subjected the proceedings to the summary-trial jurisdictional requirements of the Code. (2) Whether Section 231(1)(c)(i) of the Penal Code was correctly interpreted in relation to the meaning of "obtaining an exemption". (3) Whether the conviction could lawfully be sustained after the trial court rejected the specific deception alleged in the charge. (4) Whether the statutory requirement that an exemption be obtained "by deception" can lawfully be satisfied by conduct occurring only after the alleged exemption had already been obtained. (5) Whether the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction on a factual theory of deception materially broader than that adopted by the trial court. (6) Whether a conviction for obtaining an exemption from liability can lawfully be sustained where the underlying liability was not established by evidence.
Last updated: 11 November 2026
JCPC/2019/0106
•
ARBITRATION
Judgment given[2021] UKPC 32Case summary:This appeal concerns an application under sections 39 and 39A of the Mauritian International Arbitration Act to set aside an arbitral award on the basis that the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the arbitration clause agreed between the parties. The outcome of the appeal will depend on the proper construction of the arbitration clause in question and, in particular, on whether the rules properly applicable to the arbitration were those of the International Court of the International Chamber of Commerce or those of the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Arbitration and Mediation Centre.
Last updated: 10 November 2026
JCPC/2020/0036
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2022] UKPC 24Case summary:This appeal centres on whether a co-operative society had the capacity and authority to enter into a loan transaction and to grant certain security to a lender in respect of its indebtedness. The Board is asked to consider: (1) the interpretation of the term "maximum liability" for the purposes of the Co-Operative Societies Regulations (the "Regulations"); (2) whether the capacity of the Society was fettered; (3) certain procedural issues in the courts below, namely whether SR Projects pleaded that there was more than one maximum liability and, if not, whether it should be permitted to advance that assertion; (4) whether the Society had exceeded its maximum liability at the time it entered into the loan and provided security; and (5) as a result whether the loan and security were ultra vires, void and unenforceable.
Last updated: 10 November 2026
JCPC/2026/0095
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 10 November 2026
JCPC/2026/0072
•
NEGLIGENCE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:(1) Did the First Respondent owe a contractual or tortious ‘duty to warn’ the Appellant that the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (the “HVAC system”) it was to install was incapable of achieving its intended purpose? (2) Did Mr Basil Nelson, represented by the Second Respondent, personally assume responsibility to the Appellant to take care in providing professional design services?
Last updated: 9 November 2026
JCPC/2025/0094
•
VETERINARY SURGEONS
Judgment given[2026] UKPC 37Case summary:Whether the sanction imposed by the Respondent on the Appellant was disproportionate and not founded on sound and lawful reasoning.
Last updated: 9 November 2026
JCPC/2024/0095
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the trial judge’s findings and whether it improperly made inferences not supported by the trial judge’s judgment.
Last updated: 8 November 2026
JCPC/2025/0087
•
EMPLOYMENT
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the respondent did not commit an industrial relations offence under section 40(1) of the Industrial Relations Act Chap 88:01?
Last updated: 8 November 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.