Visit UKSCAll cases
11 Cases
JCPC/2025/0024
•
CONSTITUTION
Hearing listedCase summary:Were the appellants entitled to declaratory relief in respect of the breaches of their constitutional rights as identified by the Judge? What is the correct approach that the courts should adopt to the assessment and award of vindicatory (as opposed to compensatory) damages? Have the courts in Trinidad and Tobago adopted an erroneous approach to the assessment of damages awarded for the breach of constitutional rights?Were the appellants entitled to declaratory relief in respect of the breaches of their constitutional rights as identified by the Judge? What is the correct approach that the courts should adopt to the assessment and award of vindicatory (as opposed to compensatory) damages? Have the courts in Trinidad and Tobago adopted an erroneous approach to the assessment of damages awarded for the breach of constitutional rights?
Last updated: 9 October 2026
JCPC/2025/0075
•
INSOLVENCY
Judgment scheduledCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing the application on the basis that the sole director of the company failed to provide evidence that he was authorised to represent the company in proceedings?
Last updated: 7 October 2026
JCPC/2025/0070
•
INSOLVENCY
Hearing listedCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing the application on the basis that the sole director of the company failed to provide evidence that he was authorised to represent the company in proceedings?
Last updated: 6 October 2026
JCPC/2024/0031
•
NEGLIGENCE
Judgment given[2026] UKPC 9Case summary:(1) Can claims for unliquidated damages exceeding $4,000 give rise to appeals to the JCPC as of right under section 23(1) of the Bahamas Court of Appeal Act (the “CA Act”)? (2) Does the rule in Rylands v Fletcher impose strict liability on a landowner and lessor who neither occupies the land, nor owns or controls the dangerous thing? (3) Is the storage of fuel underground a “non-natural use of land” for the purposes of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
Last updated: 10 September 2026
JCPC/2021/0047
•
Hearing listed[2022] UKPC 57Case summary:Can the appellant enforce the terms of a compromise agreement which purports to vary the terms of a will? Is the appellant entitled to any other relief?
Last updated: 10 September 2026
JCPC/2020/0076
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment scheduled[2022] UKPC 27Case summary:Did the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands err in respect of (i) the basis on which it calculated the damages payable to Fenris and (ii) its decision that the period of loss ended at the first instance judgment in 2012, rather than in May 2016.
Last updated: 10 September 2026
JCPC/2024/0006
•
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:When a court considers whether a claimant should be permitted to appeal the decision of a foreign court, must it take into account the fact that the foreign appellate court’s decision has, in fact, already heard and allowed the appeal in question?
Last updated: 10 September 2026
JCPC/2023/0009
•
Awaiting JudgmentCase summary:(1) Was the agreement for the sale of an interest in land binding and enforceable? (2) Following that determination, what is the appropriate relief?
Last updated: 8 September 2026
JCPC/2019/0055
•
CRIME
Judgment given[2022] UKPC 12Case summary:Whether the Court of Appeal for Bermuda erred in upholding the Appellant’s conviction for premeditated murder.
Last updated: 7 September 2026
JCPC/2023/0008
•
Awaiting Judgment[2024] UKPC 24Case summary:(1) Was the agreement for the sale of an interest in land binding and enforceable? (2) Following that determination, what is the appropriate relief?
Last updated: 26 August 2026
JCPC/2022/0064
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) What is the legal effect of the Appellants' failure to claim the Surveyed Land during the Land Registration and Titling Project in Saint Lucia in mid-1987 on the Appellants' claim to overriding interests under sections 23 and 28 of the Land Registration Act 1984 (the "LRA")? (2) Is the period before first registration required to be ignored for the purposes of identifying an overriding interest under s.28(f) of the LRA? (3) Ought the Court of Appeal have held that the Respondent acquired Parcel 1020B 227 subject to the Appellants' right to defend a possession claim because the Appellants had an overriding interest under s.28(f) of the LRA because they had "rights acquired or in the process of being acquired by virtue of any law relating to the limitation of actions or by prescription" as at the date of first registration. (4) Are, on the basis of the Court of Appeal's findings of fact, the Appellants entitled to a declaration that they had a positive prescription right to the Surveyed Land based on at least 30 years' occupation? (5) Whether the Appellants' counterclaim should be remitted and the relief and costs ordered against them set aside?
Last updated: 21 January 2025
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.