Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Upcoming

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  22 July 2026

  Stenner (Appellant) v Teignbridge District Council (Respondent)

  Lord Sales,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lady Simler,

  Lord Snowden

  What is the correct test the courts should adopt when applying the “Ouster Principle” in the context of determining whether a purported easement is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant (and therefore valid)?

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Hearing

  22 July 2026

  Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Appellant) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co. Limited and another (Respondents) No 2 (Trinidad & Tobago)

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lord Doherty

  These appeals concern allegations of clinical negligence following Aeden’s birth. The issues raised for the JCPC’s consideration all concern findings of fact in relation to the cause of Aeden’s cerebral palsy. In Dr Abdulla’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0063), and in Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s cross-appeal (JCPC/2025/0065/A) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to reverse the High Court’s finding of fact as to the timing of Dr Abdulla’s arrival? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that causation was inevitably proved against Dr Abdulla, if it was proved that he arrived at 4am? In Aeden Balwah’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0065) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the High Court’s finding that it had not been proved that Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s breach of duty caused Aeden Balwah’s cerebral palsy?

  Linked cases

  JCPC/2025/0063 Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his mother and next friend) and another (Respondents) v Marwan Ahmad Alsayed Abdulla (Appellant) (Trinidad & Tobago)

  Legal Issue

  JCPC/2025/0065/A Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Respondent) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co. Limited (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

  Cross Appeal

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Hearing

  22 July 2026

  Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his mother and next friend) and another (Respondents) v Marwan Ahmad Alsayed Abdulla (Appellant) (Trinidad & Tobago)

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Stephens,

  Lord Doherty,

  Lady Wise

  These appeals concern allegations of clinical negligence following Aeden’s birth. The issues raised for the JCPC’s consideration all concern findings of fact in relation to the cause of Aeden’s cerebral palsy. In Dr Abdulla’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0063), and in Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s cross-appeal (JCPC/2025/0065/A) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to reverse the High Court’s finding of fact as to the timing of Dr Abdulla’s arrival? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that causation was inevitably proved against Dr Abdulla, if it was proved that he arrived at 4am? In Aeden Balwah’s appeal (JCPC/2025/0065) (1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the High Court’s finding that it had not been proved that Surgi-Med Clinic Co Ltd’s breach of duty caused Aeden Balwah’s cerebral palsy?

  Linked cases

  JCPC/2025/0065 Aeden Balwah (by Shelly-Ann Balwah, his Mother and Next Friend) (Appellant) v Surgi-Med Clinic Co. Limited and another (Respondents) No 2 (Trinidad & Tobago)

  Legal Issue

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  2 November 2026

  Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Sintra Global Inc and another (Appellants)

  When a taxpayer appeals against an HMRC penalty on the basis that the underlying tax claimed is not owed, does the burden rest on the taxpayer to prove that he or she is not liable to pay the underlying tax?

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  23 November 2026

  The Czech Republic (Respondent) v Diag Human SE and another (Appellants)

  Does “control” for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) of the investment treaty agreed between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Swiss Confederation dated 5 October 1990 (“BIT”) require that the legal entity be controlled de jure, or is de facto control sufficient? What is the test for “de facto” control for the purposes of Article 1(1)(c) BIT? Did the CA err by holding that CR’s objection to Mr Strava’s claim in respect of breaches of the BIT post-dating the alleged disposal of his interest in the qualifying investments was not an objection to “substantive jurisdiction” under section 30 Arbitration Act 1996? Did the Court of Appeal err by ordering that the full BIT award should be paid to Mr Stava despite finding that Diag Human SE was not a qualifying investor for the purposes of the BIT?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2025/0177 The Czech Republic (Appellant) v Diag Human SE and another (Respondents) No 2

  Legal Issue

  ---