Visit UKSCAll cases
757 Cases
JCPC/2019/0014
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the first instance judge gave reasons for finding the President’s refusal to reinstate the Respondent was reviewable and, if not, whether the that failure to give reasons in fact mattered. (2) Whether the President made any decision or omission in relation to the Respondent’s resignation that is capable of review. (3) Whether, in the circumstances, the President erred in law in refusing to take any steps regarding, or to accede to the Respondent’s request for, reinstatement. (4) Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal was wrong in law in holding that in any event the claim should be allowed to be pursued on public interest grounds. (5) Whether in any event it is necessary for the President, through the Attorney-General, to be a party to the Respondent’s claim.
Last updated: 24 March 2025
JCPC/2025/0019
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 21 March 2025
JCPC/2025/0018
•
Appeal issuedCase summary:Last updated: 21 March 2025
JCPC/2023/0092
•
COURT PROCEDURE
WithdrawnCase summary:(1) Under Ukrainian law, was the Appellant validly assigned a Ukrainian bank’s tortious claims against the Respondents? (2) Under Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, can new evidence be introduced on appeal if it did not exist at the time of the first-instance hearing? (3) Is the forum conveniens only assessed against circumstances existing at the first-instance hearing/return date or can it be reevaluated on appeal in light of subsequent events? (4) If a court holds that a country is the forum conveniens, is that decision affected by the outbreak of armed conflict in that country? (5) In this case, did the High Court correctly assess the forum conveniens?
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2018/0034
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:See judgment
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2025/0005
•
ARBITRATION
Appeal issuedCase 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: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2009/0030
•
Judgment givenCase summary:Claim to secure the enforcement of a development agreement made in the Turks and Caicos Islands concerning the proposed mixed use development of land extending to 35 acres located at North West Point, Providenciales.
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2009/0028
•
Judgment givenCase summary:An appeal against the respondent's refusal to grant a joint tenancy agreement to a same sex couple.
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2009/0024
•
Judgment givenCase summary:A claim to an undivided half interest in a parcel of rural agricultural land at Jalousie, St Lucia.
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2009/0023
•
Judgment givenCase summary:An appeal relating to disciplinary charges against the Chief Magistrate of Trinidad and Tobago.
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2009/0079
•
Judgment givenCase summary:An appeal from Jamaica concerning the regulation of the telecommunications market.
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2009/0035
•
Judgment givenCase summary:A appeal relating to the sale of property in Kingston, Jamaica.
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2009/0011
•
Judgment givenCase summary:Unfair dismissal from employment as a pharmacist. The Appellant was awarded compensation by the Industrial Court. The Respondent appealed and the Appeal Court found that the Appellant's contract of employment was void for uncertainty. The issues in this appeal are whether the finding that the contract of employment was void for uncertainty was open to the Court of Appeal and whether the appellant was unfairly dismissed.
Last updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2018/0089
•
ARBITRATION
Judgment givenCase summary:(i) In appeal 2018/0084, whether the Supreme Court erred in finding compelling reasons to grant an injunction restraining the appellants from pursuing further action elsewhere on the basis they were shareholders in the respondent. (ii) In appeal 2018/0089, whether the arbitration award should be set aside (a) because of a breach of natural justice in the arbitration, or (b) because of a failure by the arbitrator to decide all the issues, or (c) to give reasons, or (d) because the award was in breach of public policy, or (e) because the Supreme Court erred in its construction of the shareholders’ agreement.
Linked casesLast updated: 20 March 2025
JCPC/2018/0084
•
ARBITRATION
Judgment givenCase summary:(i) In appeal 2018/0084, whether the Supreme Court erred in finding compelling reasons to grant an injunction restraining the appellants from pursuing further action elsewhere on the basis they were shareholders in the respondent. (ii) In appeal 2018/0089, whether the arbitration award should be set aside (a) because of a breach of natural justice in the arbitration, or (b) because of a failure by the arbitrator to decide all the issues, or (c) to give reasons, or (d) because the award was in breach of public policy, or (e) because the Supreme Court erred in its construction of the shareholders’ agreement.
Linked casesLast updated: 20 March 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.