Visit UKSCAll cases
924 Cases
JCPC/2025/0004
•
TORT
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0097
•
TORT
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the default judgment against the Attorney General
Last updated: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0108
•
TAX
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err in their interpretation of “permanent place of abode” for the purposes of section 73(1)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1995 (the “ITA”)?
Last updated: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0099
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Whether the Respondent’s refusal to revalidate the import licences for certain imported cars after 2021 was an unlawful fettering of their discretion and/or was it otherwise unlawful on public law grounds, including the Appellants’ legitimate expectations of a revalidation or their unequal treatment by the Respondent?
Last updated: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2024/0102
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase 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: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2024/1004
•
EMPLOYMENT
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the Industrial Court’s ruling that the Appellant is the successor to British West Indian Airways and therefore bound to recognise the Respondent as one of its recognised majority unions under the Industrial Relations Act?
Last updated: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0043
•
INSOLVENCY
Hearing listedCase 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: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2023/0103
•
CRIME
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of the Civil Asset Recovery and Management and Unexplained Wealth Act No.8 of 2019 (the “Act”) in finding that the Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order (“PUWO”) originally imposed under that Act and then set aside by the High Court could be reinstated, including as against the Estate of Sheldon Spring?
Last updated: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2023/0067
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hearing listedCase summary:(i) Was the Court of Appeal wrong because it did not overturn the decision of the trial judge to strike out Mr Hosein’s constitutional claim on the basis of various factors, in particular the availability of a parallel remedy and the delay in bringing proceedings? (ii) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to conclude there was no evidence of apparent bias on the part of the trial judge?
Last updated: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2024/0092
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the termination notice period given by the Respondents was reasonable?
Last updated: 2 March 2026
JCPC/2025/0031/A
•
CRIME
Hearing listedCase 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: 27 February 2026
JCPC/2025/0015
•
TAX
Hearing listedCase 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: 27 February 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: 27 February 2026
JCPC/2025/0069
•
VETERINARY SURGEONS
Case closedCase summary:(1) Whether the admissions made by the Appellant before the Disciplinary Committee of the Respondent (the “Disciplinary Committee”) should be vacated on appeal? (2) Whether “new” evidence produced by the Appellant since the original hearing should be admissible?
Last updated: 27 February 2026
JCPC/2025/0065/A
•
NEGLIGENCE
Permission to Appeal grantedCase 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: 26 February 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.