Visit UKSCAll cases
971 Cases
JCPC/2025/0031/A
•
CRIME
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(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 casesLast updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0031
•
CRIME
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary: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 casesLast updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0026
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:The claimant asylum seekers arrived without authorisation in British Indian Ocean Territory (“BIOT”). While in BIOT, their movements were heavily restricted. The claimants brought proceedings against the Commissioner of BIOT under the tort of false imprisonment. (1) For the purposes of BIOT law, should the tort of false imprisonment be adapted to reflect the fact that BIOT is a secure military base with no permanent population? (2) If the restrictions on the claimants’ movements amounted to imprisonment, what is the scope of the defence of necessity and were the restrictions on the claimants’ movements ‘necessary’ in the relevant sense? (4) Was the Restriction of Movement Order 2024 an unreasonable exercise of the Commissioner’s power to make orders under the BIOT Constitution and therefore ultra vires? (5) Did the Supreme Court of BIOT err by giving insufficient weight to evidence as to the unique security situation in BIOT? (6) Was the BIOT Court of Appeal wrong to hold that none of questions (1)-(5) raised ‘any genuinely disputable issue’ and consequently refuse the Commissioner permission to appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
Last updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0027
•
ARBITRATION
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Does article 46A of the Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 2019 have retrospective effect? Did RTI have a reasonable belief that it was necessary to act in breach of contract by not making the payments to OWH?
Last updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2026/0021
•
CRIME
Permission to Appeal application lodgedCase summary:Was the admission of the appellant’s alleged confessions to murder contrary to ss 20 and 178 of the Evidence Act 1996 and the Judge’s Rules? Did the absence of legal advice breach the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 20 of the Constitution of the Bahamas? Did the trial judge err in failing to give a good character direction?
Last updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2024/0095
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Awaiting hearing dateCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the trial judge’s findings and whether it improperly made inferences not supported by the trial judge’s judgment.
Last updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0036
•
TORT
Judgment given[2026] UKPC 1Case summary:Was the Court of Appeal correct to interfere with the High Court’s finding that the appellant doctor was not negligent?
Last updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2023/0048
•
CRIME
Judgment given[2025] UKPC 55Case summary:Having found the appellant guilty of damage and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, but having acquitted him of armed robbery, had the jury been misdirected by the judge and did they deliver inconsistent verdicts as a result? If so, is the appellant’s conviction unsafe?
Last updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0095
•
CONSTITUTION
Awaiting judgmentCase summary:Do sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986 (the “Act”) repeal and re-enact sections 59, 60 and 61 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1925 and so fall within section 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (the “Constitution”)? Do sections 13 and 16 of the Act infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed by section 4 of the Constitution? Are sections 13 and 16 of the Act reasonably justifiable, in whole or in part, in a society which has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual?
Last updated: 9 July 2026
JCPC/2024/0043
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment given[2025] UKPC 58Case summary:Is an unlicensed business able to enforce a loan contract and charge against the property of a borrower if they default on payment? Was the Court of Appeal entitled to refuse the appellant leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee on the basis that the appeal was devoid of merit and had no prospect of success, where otherwise the appellant would have an appeal as of right?
Last updated: 8 July 2026
JCPC/2024/0063
•
TAX
Judgment given[2025] UKPC 57Case summary:Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err in finding that, for the purposes of computing taxable profit arising from the sale of 93 plots following the parcelling of land, it was the value of the land ‘just before its development’, and not its historical cost at the date of acquisition, which should be taken into account pursuant to s.10(3) of the Income Tax Act 1995?
Last updated: 8 July 2026
JCPC/2024/0007
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment given[2025] UKPC 56Case summary:1) Whether the just and equitable winding-up jurisdiction may be used to alter, amend or supplement the normal effect of the law of contract in circumstances where the parties have entered into a contract regulating their relationship and where that contract expressly makes provision for the matter or matters giving rise to the Respondent’s complain. (2) Whether the Respondent’s complaint is governed exclusively by the law of contract. (3)Whether it was a breach of the duty to act in good faith for the General Partner to rely on entire-agreement clause in the 2017 Agreement to decline to give effect to assurances made outside of that Agreement. (4) Whether the reliance by the General Partner on the terms of the 2017 Agreement in not transferring the shares was misconduct in the management and affairs of the Partnership giving rise to a loss of trust and confidence as to justify the making of a winding up order on the just and equitable ground. (5) Whether the General Partner has breached its duty to act in good faith by refusing to transfer the shares in Legend Cayman to the Respondent so as to justify the making of a winding up order on the just and equitable ground. (6) Whether there is an adequate alternative remedy available to the Respondent by bringing an action for breach of duty under Section 19(1), Exempted Limited Partnership Act.
Last updated: 8 July 2026
JCPC/2025/0005
•
ARBITRATION
Judgment given[2025] UKPC 54Case summary:Did the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal err in holding that: (1) it was not bound to apply the rule in Henry v Geoprosco [1976] 1 QB 726; and (2) the Respondent has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Pakistan courts?
Last updated: 8 July 2026
JCPC/2024/0022
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment given[2025] UKPC 53Case summary:Is it a requirement of the tort of deceit that the claimant be aware of the making of the representations on which the claim is based? Does the claim for misrepresentation fail since it was brought after the expiry of the Georgian limitation period?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 July 2026
JCPC/2024/0035
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment given[2025] UKPC 53Case summary:On the correct interpretation of the policies, what contractual obligations did CS Life owe to the policyholder? Did the Respondents choose a discretionary mandate as their investment alternative? What measure should the Chief Justice have adopted as the measure of investment performance if CS Life had complied with its contractual duty of investment? What are the correct start and end dates for the assessment of damages for breach of the contractual duty of investment? Did CS Life owe fiduciary duties to the Respondents after the policies commenced?
Linked casesLast updated: 8 July 2026
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.