Visit UKSCAll cases
982 Cases
JCPC/2025/0063
•
NEGLIGENCE
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0065
•
NEGLIGENCE
Awaiting judgmentCase 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 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0065/A
•
NEGLIGENCE
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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 July 2026
JCPC/2019/0118
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius was correct to find the Appellant, Mr. Stephen Anthony Aldridge, liable for having breached the Companies Act 2001 for having debited the bank account of the Respondent, Mordaunt Estates Ltd., and credited his own account for the sum of GBP 615,000.
Last updated: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0066
•
COMMERCIAL
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Did the directors of a company breach their duties when they issued new shares resulting in a beneficial owner and co-shareholder ceasing to be a beneficial owner, either because (i) the issuance did not pursue a proper purpose, and/or (ii) they did not have regard to the market value of the company when determining the share price?
Last updated: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0047
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Appeal issuedCase summary:Is there a binding agreement for the grant of a lease?
Last updated: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0040
•
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Can land owned by the Crown be acquired by prescription?
Last updated: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2024/0086
•
CRIME
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Whether the first instance judge erred in his application of the law as to whether assets were recoverable as property obtained through unlawful conduct.
Last updated: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0074
•
CONSTITUTION
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0073
•
CONSTITUTION
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0072
•
CONSTITUTION
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 27 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0031/A
•
CRIME
Awaiting JudgmentCase 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: 26 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0031
•
CRIME
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary: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?
Linked casesLast updated: 26 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0095
•
CONSTITUTION
Awaiting judgmentCase 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: 26 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0050
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:The case raises the following issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err in reversing the finding that the Respondent had not proved documentary title in respect of the contested property? May the courts rely on section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to require the Respondent to deduce title beyond her 1963 Conveyance? (2) Did the Court of Appeal wrongly interfere with the finding that the Appellant had proved intention to possess? Does section 38 of the Limitation Act 1995 apply in the present circumstances? (3) If the Respondent has documentary title and the Appellant has possessory title in respect of the property, does the former, even if defective, constitute better title than the latter in a claim in trespass?
Last updated: 26 July 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.