Visit UKSCAll cases
949 Cases
JCPC/2025/0072
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase 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: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0073
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase 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: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0074
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase 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: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0095
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase 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: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2019/0010
•
CRIME
Judgment givenCase summary:Mr Ariste appeals against his conviction for armed robbery on the basis that it was unsafe because: (i) He was denied access to legal representation during his detention, police questioning and at trial; (ii) His confession was obtained by oppression and so should not be admitted as evidence; and (iii) The Judge's directions to the jury in relation to the confession and evidence going to Mr Ariste's character were inadequate.
Last updated: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0103
•
TAX
Appeal issuedCase summary:Is the First Respondent entitled to a partial tax exemption on interest income received from certain loans?
Last updated: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0031
•
CRIME
Hearing listedCase 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: 15 May 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: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0066
•
COMMERCIAL
Hearing listedCase 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: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2022/0071
•
CRIME
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Were grounds of appeal given to prison authorities by an inmate filed in compliance with the Judicature (Parish Court) Act? (2) Should the appeal court have allowed an appeal to be heard, even if it was out of time, given the circumstances of the case and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Jamaica? (3) Should the appeal court have quashed Mr Morgan's conviction given the circumstances of the case and the Privy Council's guidance in Melanie Tapper v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] UKPC 26 on remedies?
Last updated: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0043
•
INSOLVENCY
Judgment givenCase 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: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0044
•
INSOLVENCY
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err (1) by concluding that the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius lacked jurisdiction to grant leave for the Appellant to continue the Plaint as a derivative claim in the name and on behalf of the Respondent; (2) by holding that the application could not be granted ex parte; and (3) if the application could be granted ex parte, by failing to consider that no prejudice was thereby caused to the Respondent?
Linked casesLast updated: 15 May 2026
JCPC/2022/0075
•
ARBITRATION
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the court a quo err in annulling a final arbitral award rendered by a sole arbitrator?
Last updated: 14 May 2026
JCPC/2026/0020
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Can an appellate court make findings of fact, evaluative judgments, and proportionality assessments for itself under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)? Was article 6 ECHR breached in this case by delay and/or apparent bias? What is the correct approach to be applied by a court and a regulator in determining whether an individual is a “fit and proper person” to perform regulated functions?
Linked casesLast updated: 13 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0120
•
TORT
Appeal issuedCase summary:Did the trial judge and/or the Court of Appeal err in respect of the appellant’s claim for continued (unlawful) detention? Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the trial judge had made no material error of law in rejecting the appellant’s claim for assault and battery?
Last updated: 13 May 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.