Visit UKSCAll cases
814 Cases
JCPC/2023/0097
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Are rights to play golf, tennis and to enjoy facilities on certain land in Grand Cayman and associated restrictive agreements binding upon the current owners of that land?
Last updated: 17 June 2025
JCPC/2023/0079
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Was a deceased’s will invalid on the basis that the deceased did not know of and approve its contents?
Last updated: 17 June 2025
JCPC/2024/0035
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase summary:The Cross-Appeal is advanced on four grounds. In summary, the Cross-Appellants contend that the misrepresentation claim should be governed by Bermuda law, with the result that the 3-year Georgian law limitation period should not apply, because either: (i) the Imanagement exception to the double actionability rule applies (Ground 1); or (ii) if Georgian law is to be taken into account pursuant to the double actionability rule, that should include Georgia’s choice of law rules which the Cross-Appellants contend refer actionability back to Bermudian law (Ground 2). The Cross-Appellants also contend that the misrepresentation claim was based on the same or substantially the same facts so that it was appropriate for the Chief Justice to give leave to amend the original Statement of Claim (and so defeat any Georgian law limitation defence) (Ground 3). Finally, the Cross-Appellants contend that this is an appropriate case for finding that the Cross-Appellants were induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations, notwithstanding that they may not have contemporaneously and consciously turned their minds to the specific misrepresentations that were conveyed (Ground 4).
Linked casesLast updated: 17 June 2025
JCPC/2024/0022
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Hearing listedCase summary:CS Life advances six grounds of appeal. In summary, it argues that judgment on the contractual claims is inconsistent with the contractual documentation and that there is no scope for any fiduciary duties. In the alternative, CS Life appeals on three grounds relating to quantum. It contends that damages (i) should be assessed on the basis of the specific transactions identified as objectionable by the experts, rather than on the basis that the entire portfolio should be replaced with an alternative medium risk portfolio from the outset (Ground 4); (ii) should have been calculated from the dates the LPI Policies were entered into rather than the date the Policy Assets were transferred into the name of CS Life (Ground 5); and (iii) should only have been calculated to August 2017 (Ground 6).
Linked casesLast updated: 17 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0053
•
INSOLVENCY
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 17 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0052
•
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 17 June 2025
JCPC/2024/0012
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Is the Appellant entitled to an order for possession of the disputed land on the basis that the Respondents are trespassers who have not acquired a possessory title by adverse possession?
Last updated: 16 June 2025
JCPC/2023/0114
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that (i) there was no binding agreement to pay an additional sum under the contract for services in the absence of approval by the Respondent’s board, and (ii) in the alternative, there was no consideration for a separate agreement to pay the additional sum?
Last updated: 16 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0051
•
EXTRADITION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Last updated: 13 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0006
•
TORT
Appeal issuedCase summary:Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the decision of the General Legal Council, finding Mr Foote guilty of professional negligence and ordering him to pay restitution to his former client?
Last updated: 13 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0009
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the appellant was not entitled to rest on the advances received from her late husband’s moveable estate while he was alive, to the extent that the advances exceeded the disposable one-third of his moveable estate?
Last updated: 13 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0011
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal refusedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err by failing to find: (1) that the fresh evidence disclosed by the police and/or obtained since the trial establishes a miscarriage of justice. (2) That the appearance of jury bias amounts to a material irregularity in the proceedings and gives rise to a real possibility of bias that renders Mr Allen’s conviction unsafe. (3) The prosecution failed to disclose documents that undermined the police case and assisted the Defence case, such that there was a miscarriage of justice.
Last updated: 13 June 2025
JCPC/2025/0012
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err by: (1) Failing to give effect to a later contract, known as the “2014 agreement”, which allegedly remained a valid agreement. (2) Conducting an enquiry into sums paid under an earlier agreement, known as the “2007 agreement”, rather than acknowledging the 2014 superseded this agreement. (3) Failing to appreciate that section 11 of the Moneylenders Act was inapplicable to the 2014 agreement. (4) Failing to consider that, if the 2014 agreement was nevertheless non-compliant with section 11, then the Appellant was entitled to relief under the principles of unjust enrichment.
Last updated: 13 June 2025
JCPC/2022/0062
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:The validity under Antiguan law of a Rights Agreement adopted on 28 March 2016 by the board of the Respondent company without shareholder approval.
Linked casesLast updated: 11 June 2025
JCPC/2022/0041
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:This case concerns the validity under Antiguan law of an AGM vote and a Rights Agreement. In particular, the Privy Council is asked to decide: 1. whether the incumbent board was validly removed and new board validly elected by shareholder votes at an AGM held on 6 February 2018; and 2. whether the Rights Agreement was validly adopted by the Company Board on 28 March 2016 as a matter of Antiguan law.
Linked casesLast updated: 11 June 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.