Visit UKSC
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
This is the final court of appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It also serves those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to His Majesty in Council or, in the case of republics, to the Judicial Committee.
The Court is closed for the remainder of the day
LISTINGS
Upcoming
- Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Hotel La Tour Ltd (Appellant)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
4 June 2025
Lord Briggs,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Leggatt,
Lady Rose,
Lord Richards
Can Hotel La Tour Ltd, the representative company of the Hotel La Tour Group which carries on the taxable business of providing hotel accommodation, recover input tax incurred in connection with a sale of shares in its managed subsidiary, Hotel La Tour Birmingham Ltd?
- X (Appellant) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
9 June 2025
Lord Reed,
Lord Hodge,
Lord Briggs,
Lord Burrows,
Lady Simler
Does the Appellant’s case against the Respondent under section 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 satisfy the first stage of the test for vicarious liability?
- In the matter of an application by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for Judicial Review (Appellant)
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
11 June 2025
Lord Reed,
Lord Hodge,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Sales,
Lord Stephens
(1) What is the correct approach to reviewing the decision of an inferior court or tribunal that has purported to disagree with the assessment of national security issues by the responsible Minister? (2) Were cogent (or any) reasons provided in this case sufficient to render lawful the proposed departure from the Minister’s assessment? (3) Does procedural fairness require a coroner proposing to provide a gist of sensitive information, over which public-interest immunity has been asserted in a Ministerial Certificate, to give the relevant Minster an opportunity to make representations and submissions on the proposed gist before the decision is made to release it? (4) Did the coroner here act ultra vires, Wednesbury irrationally and/or fail to take into account a material consideration when she ordered disclosure of a gist / information damaging to national security when the inquest could never be completed by operation of statute?
- Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd (Respondent) v Bidzina Ivanishvili and 6 others (Appellants) No 2 (Bermuda)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
16 June 2025
Lord Hodge,
Lord Briggs,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Richards,
Lady Simler
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 cases
- Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd (Appellant) v Bidzina Ivanishvili and 6 others (Respondents) (Bermuda)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
16 June 2025
Lord Hodge,
Lord Briggs,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Richards,
Lady Simler
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 cases
THINGS TO DO
Take a tour of the Court
We offer a range of tours to suit individuals and groups, including in-person and virtual tours.
Exhibitions and events
Find out what's on, including our permanent exhibition about the history and work of the Court.
SPEECHES
LATEST JUDGMENTS
29 May 2025
Garet O Finlayson and another (Appellants) v Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (Respondent) (The Bahamas)15 May 2025
Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Appellant) v EDASCO Ltd (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)28 April 2025
Attorney General of the Cayman Islands and another (Appellants) v Joey Delosa Buray and another (Respondents), Zanna Me-Waakie Jones Hunter intervening (Cayman Islands)22 April 2025
Ricardo Farrington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bahamas)- Methanex Trinidad (Titan) Unlimited (Appellant) v The Board of Inland Revenue (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)