Visit UKSCAll cases
956 Cases
JCPC/2025/0015
•
TAX
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 4 June 2026
JCPC/2025/0029
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Does the definition of “Annual Basic Salary” in the employment contract between the Appellant and the Respondent (and the annex to that contract) violate the End of the Year Gratuity Act 2001 (“EYGA”)?
Last updated: 4 June 2026
JCPC/2020/0010
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to: (i) reverse the trial judge’s decision on the facts; (ii) set aside the trial judge’s appointment of a liquidator and order much more limited relief; (iii) refuse to admit fresh evidence.
Last updated: 4 June 2026
JCPC/2020/0084
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the trial judge and the Court of Appeal were correct to find that: (i) the land was part of the Grand Ance Estate and therefore conveyed by the 1914 conveyance; (ii) it was for the appellant to prove that the land was foreshore; (iii) there was insufficient evidence to establish that the land, or part of it, was foreshore.
Last updated: 4 June 2026
JCPC/2019/0123
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment givenCase summary:(i) Whether the Appellant was negligent. (ii) Whether the trial judge had sufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant’s pipeline was the cause of the damage to the Respondents’ home.
Last updated: 4 June 2026
JCPC/2021/0047
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Can the appellant enforce the terms of a compromise agreement which purports to vary the terms of a will? Is the appellant entitled to any other relief?
Last updated: 4 June 2026
JCPC/2025/0007
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in striking out the Appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution and/or abuse of process?
Last updated: 4 June 2026
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: 3 June 2026
JCPC/2021/0061
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Under the statutory receivership regime in Trinidad and Tobago, when can the court grant an injunction restraining a receiver from exercising their power of sale over a company’s assets? Was the High Court right to strike out the Respondents’ claims and discharge the injunction against the Appellant?
Last updated: 3 June 2026
JCPC/2026/0031
•
FAMILY
Appeal issuedCase summary:What is the correct interpretation of “the duration of a marriage” under the Matrimonial Property Act, section 27(d)?
Last updated: 3 June 2026
JCPC/2026/0026
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:The claimant asylum seekers arrived without authorisation in British Indian Ocean Territory (“BIOT”). While in BIOT, their movements were heavily restricted. The claimants brought proceedings against the Commissioner of BIOT under the tort of false imprisonment. (1) For the purposes of BIOT law, should the tort of false imprisonment be adapted to reflect the fact that BIOT is a secure military base with no permanent population? (2) If the restrictions on the claimants’ movements amounted to imprisonment, what is the scope of the defence of necessity and were the restrictions on the claimants’ movements ‘necessary’ in the relevant sense? (4) Was the Restriction of Movement Order 2024 an unreasonable exercise of the Commissioner’s power to make orders under the BIOT Constitution and therefore ultra vires? (5) Did the Supreme Court of BIOT err by giving insufficient weight to evidence as to the unique security situation in BIOT? (6) Was the BIOT Court of Appeal wrong to hold that none of questions (1)-(5) raised ‘any genuinely disputable issue’ and consequently refuse the Commissioner permission to appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
Last updated: 3 June 2026
JCPC/2026/0021
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Was the admission of the appellant’s alleged confessions to murder contrary to ss 20 and 178 of the Evidence Act 1996 and the Judge’s Rules? Did the absence of legal advice breach the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 20 of the Constitution of the Bahamas? Did the trial judge err in failing to give a good character direction?
Last updated: 3 June 2026
JCPC/2017/0067
•
CRIME
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago err in overturning the trial Judge’s factual findings that there was a lack of honest belief and malice in the arrest and charge of the appellant?
Last updated: 2 June 2026
JCPC/2020/0061
•
ENVIRONMENT/PLANNING
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Can an appellant rely on arguments in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that were not advanced before the Court of Appeal? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold or remake a security for costs order in favour of the respondents?
Last updated: 2 June 2026
JCPC/2026/0014
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal granted in partCase summary:Did a delay of 7 years and 2 months between the hearing of an appeal and the delivery of the judgment by the Supreme Court of Mauritius violate the appellant’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, such that the appellant’s conviction should be quashed? Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius properly direct itself as to the essential elements of the offence of “obtaining gratification” under sections 7(1) and 83 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Last updated: 2 June 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.