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.

Find a case

The Court is closed for the remainder of the day

QUICK LINKS

LISTINGS

Upcoming

UK Supreme Court
Judgment
21 October 2026
ScottishPower (SCPL) Limited and others (Respondents) v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant)
Lord Reed,
Lord Stephens,
Lady Rose,
Lady Simler,
Lord Doherty
Does the rule preventing the deduction of penalty payments for the purpose of calculating taxable profits encompass payments made to consumers/consumer organisations in settlement of regulatory investigations?
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Hearing
22 October 2026
Servol Limited (Appellant) v Early Childhood Teachers Trade Union (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Lord Briggs,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Burrows,
Lord Stephens,
Lady Simler
Does the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to decide that a failure to provide for retirement benefits constitutes a breach of good industrial relations practices for which an award was justifiable under the Industrial Relations Act 1972, section 10(3)?
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Judgment
22 October 2026
Warren Cassell (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Montserrat) No 2
Lord Briggs,
Lord Burrows,
Lord Snowden
(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 cases
JCPC/2025/0031 Warren Cassell (Respondent) v The King (Appellant) (Montserrat)
Cross Appeal
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Judgment
22 October 2026
Warren Cassell (Respondent) v The King (Appellant) (Montserrat)
Lord Briggs,
Lord Burrows,
Lord Snowden
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 cases
JCPC/2025/0031/A Warren Cassell (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Montserrat) No 2
Cross Appeal
UK Supreme Court
Hearing
27 October 2026
In the matter of an application by Bridie Brown for Judicial Review
Lord Sales,
Lord Hamblen,
Lord Leggatt,
Lord Stephens,
Lord Snowden
In summary, did the Court of Appeal err by: (1) Concluding that the ministerial advice was deficient, in a way which failed to apply the correct standard of Wednesbury irrationality; and then not permitting the Appellant to reconsider the decision in light of full and fresh advice from officials addressing the matters identified by the Court of Appeal. (2) Assuming the role of decision-maker in this case and overstepping its constitutional boundaries. (3) Failing to properly consider what is characterised as the ‘floodgates argument’. (4) Taking into account its recent decision in Dillon, despite that decision being subject of an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court, and the relevant part of the decision being a section 4 Human Rights Act (“HRA”) declaration that did not change the law. (5) Ignoring the scheme for remedial action under the HRA, and or the Appellant’s appeal rights in relation to Dillon. (6) Concluding, in both its consideration of the substantive appeal and in relation to remedy, that this case was an exceptional one that could be distinguished from other similar Troubles related cases. (7) Concluding that the choice faced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (“SOSNI”), when considering the appropriate investigative mechanism to discharge the Article 2 European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) investigative obligation, was a “binary one” meaning that the only lawful option available was to order a Public Inquiry. (8) Then ordering the mandatory holding of a public inquiry.