Cases only appear here a few weeks before the appeal is due to be heard by the JCPC.
The Current cases table below can be sorted either in ascending or descending order by clicking on the following title headings:
- Case ID
- Case name
Current cases can also be found by using the search engine below:
|Case ID||Case name||Jurisdiction||Case summary - Issue|
|JCPC 2022/0027||National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd (Appellant) v NCB Staff Association (Respondent) (Jamaica)||Court of Appeal of Jamaica||
What is the correct interpretation and application of a formula relating to participation in a profit-sharing scheme. Whether the trial Judge was correct in his award of interest for a period that was longer than originally claimed for by the Respondent in the Fixed Date Claim Form.
Whether the Appellant acted in bad faith in declaring that the profit-sharing scheme was not triggered.
|JCPC 2021/0116||John Mussington and another (Appellants) v Development Control Authority and 2 others (Respondents) (Antigua and Barbuda)||Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua & Barbuda)||Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Appellants did not have standing to pursue judicial review proceedings against a decision to grant a development permit for the construction of a new airport runway.|
|JCPC 2022/0092||Republic of Kazakhstan (Appellant) v Terra Raf Trans Trading Ltd (Respondent) (Gibraltar)||Court of Appeal for Gibraltar||Are costs orders made by the English High Court in relation to proceedings to enforce a foreign arbitral award registrable in Gibraltar?|
|JCPC 2022/0013||Harold Chang (Appellant) v The Hospital Administrator and 2 others (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)||Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago||
1) Whether the trial Judge erred in law when he:
i. Admitted correspondence generated after payment of Mr Chang's salary had ceased as fresh evidence regarding the decision to retire Mr Chang;
ii. Applied the presumption of regularity of decisions of public bodies to the decision to retire Mr Chang;
iii. Failed to exercise his discretion to join the Public Service Commission to the case as a party.
2) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering matters in the case relating to the early retirement of Mr Chang under Chapter 23 of the Pensions Act, without having ruled on the lawfulness of the Public Service Commission's decision to retire Mr Chang.
3) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to join the Public Service Commission to the case as a party.
4) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give effect to Section 121 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago (governing the appointment of individuals to the public Service Commission and tenure of their offices) and/or the JCPC decision in Endell Thomas v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago  AC 113 relating to the removal of a public sector employee from office.
|JCPC 2022/0064||Francis Chitolie and another (Appellants) v St Lucia National Housing Corporation (Respondent) (Saint Lucia)||Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (St Lucia)||
(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?
|JCPC 2021/0060||Joseph Wilberforce Horsford, (as Administrator of the Estate of William Horsford, deceased) (Respondent) v Geoffrey Croft (Appellant) (Antigua and Barbuda)||Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda)||Whether the Appellant possesses a right of way over the land of the Respondent.|
|JCPC 2021/0068||PIC Insurance Company Ltd (Appellant) v Zona Barthley and another (Personal Representatives of the Estate of Dr Rolston Barthley, Deceased) (Respondents) (Antigua and Barbuda)||Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda)||(1) - (2) Was the Court of Appeal correct to accept as proper the findings of fact made by the judge? Can the concurrent findings be reversed? (3) - (5) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its findings under the Companies Act 1995?|
|JCPC 2021/0046||Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) v Harridath Maharaj (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)||Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago||Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in setting aside the trial judge’s finding that the Respondent was liable for the malicious prosecution of the Appellant|
|JCPC 2021/0061||Keith Arjoon and 2 others (Respondents) v Maria Daniel (Receiver) (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)||Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago||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?|
|JCPC 2018/0102||Smith (Appellant) v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (Respondent)||The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons||(1) Whether it was disproportionate and excessive for the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (the "Disciplinary Committee") to have directed that the appellant's name be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.|
|JCPC 2019/0023||Forbes and others (Appellants) v Scotiabank (Bahamas) Ltd (Respondent) (Bahamas)||The Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas||Whether the amount of damages awarded to the Appellants was correct.|
|JCPC 2016/0094||Robin's Nest Interiors (Mauritius) Limited (Appellant) v Director General Mauritius Revenue Authority and Others (Respondents)||The Supreme Court of Mauritius||Whether the decision of the first respondent can be challenged by way of judicial review or whether the taxpayer's remedy is limited to an appeal before the Assessment Review Committee (and thus whether the Supreme Court was correct to refuse leave on this basis)?|