Visit UKSCAll cases
946 Cases
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: 6 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
JCPC/2022/0023
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius were correct to overturn the Industrial Court's decision that the Appellant had not wrongly and unjustifiably terminated the Respondent's employment.
Last updated: 5 May 2026
JCPC/2020/0078
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the relevant contract was one between a principal and agent or a contract of sale and resale? If the contract was between a principal and agent, did the agent exceed its authority when it entered into various agreements to sell certain land? If the agent did exceed its authority, were the agent's actions ratified by the principals?
Last updated: 5 May 2026
JCPC/2022/0084
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Was the Appellant's constitutional right to freedom of expression contravened? If there was an unconstitutional contravention of the Appellant's right to freedom of expression, what remedies is he entitled to?
Last updated: 5 May 2026
JCPC/2023/0010
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in revising downwards the quantum of damages awarded to the Appellant for the unlawful termination of his employment.
Last updated: 1 May 2026
JCPC/2023/0031
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the High Court erred granting the Respondent summary judgment against the Appellant and refusing to grant the Appellant specific disclosure.
Last updated: 1 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0029
•
EMPLOYMENT
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Does the definition of “Annual Basic Salary” in the employment contract between the Appellant and the Respondent (and the annex to that contract) violate the End of the Year Gratuity Act 2001 (“EYGA”)?
Last updated: 1 May 2026
JCPC/2025/0021
•
COMMERCIAL
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that certain payments from EHL to EIC should be credited against the liability of Mr Flowers to pay equitable compensation for dishonest breaches of fiduciary duty and/or damages for breaches of common law?
Linked casesLast updated: 30 April 2026
JCPC/2025/0020
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in ruling that neither clause 11.4 nor the common law relating to public policy meant that the Icebreaker policies were void or unenforceable or otherwise provided EIC with a defence to the claims by policyholders?
Linked casesLast updated: 30 April 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.