Visit UKSCAll cases
947 Cases
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 s.6(1) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.
Last updated: 8 May 2026
JCPC/2023/0011
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err in refusing an application brought by the victim of an alleged fraud seeking to compel an innocent third party to disclose information relating to the alleged fraud?
Last updated: 8 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0035
•
ARBITRATION
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 7 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0041
•
EMPLOYMENT
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err in upholding the ruling of the Industrial Court that the termination of the appellant’s employment was justified on the ground of redundancy?
Last updated: 7 May 2026
JCPC/2023/0087
•
CONSTITUTION
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Is the Appellant’s claim against a magistrate under section 6 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1957 barred by a principle of judicial immunity and/or the Mauritian Civil Code of Procedure?
Last updated: 7 May 2026
JCPC/2024/0088
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment scheduledCase 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: 7 May 2026
JCPC/2024/0087
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment scheduledCase 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: 7 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0064
•
TORT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Can the appellant claim damages for loss of earnings?
Last updated: 7 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0010
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Should s13 of the Forfeiture of Money etc. in Civil Proceedings (Guernsey) Law 2007 be interpreted so as to impose on the applicant for a forfeiture order an obligation to demonstrate a causal nexus between identified or identifiable acts of unlawful conduct and the funds sought to be forfeited?
Last updated: 7 May 2026
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 s.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 s.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: 6 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0009
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:In 2004 the appellant brought proceedings against the first respondent, arguing he had adversely possessed a parcel of land. His claim succeeded and he was awarded damages. During those proceedings, he abandoned a claim for possession of the land. In 2020, he brought fresh proceedings for possession of the land against both respondents. The courts in Trinidad and Tobago struck out the appellant’s new claim as an abuse of process. Were they right to do so?
Last updated: 6 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0023
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in law by refusing to strike out the respondent’s claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process?
Last updated: 6 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0122
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal: 1) Err in its approach to reviewing findings of fact? 2) Misapply the law on adverse possession? 3) Fail to apply the proper evidential standard and draw the necessary inferences for allegations of fraud? 4) Fail to scrutinise the exercise of discretion? 5) Err in refusing to permit Counsel to withdraw or in refusing an adjournment?
Last updated: 6 May 2026
JCPC/2024/0085
•
TORT
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred by: (1) Holding the Appellants do not have a statutory right of appeal to the Privy Council. (2) Ruling that Mrs Bethel was unlawfully detained between 1 am and 3 pm on Saturday 13 December 2014; (3) Ruling that the State (or some of the appellants) are vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Bastian.
Last updated: 6 May 2026
JCPC/2021/0069
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:A landowner has the right to recover possession of his land if it is occupied without his authorisation by another person, including a former tenant. The landowner must bring his claim within sixteen years.The issues in this appeal are (1) whether the sixteen year period begins to run from the date on which rent was last paid, and, if so, (2) when rent was last paid in respect of the land with which this case is concerned.
Last updated: 5 May 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.