Visit UKSCAll cases
694 Cases
JCPC/2023/0055
•
BANKING/INSOLVENCY
Judgment givenCase summary:What is the correct approach to determining a creditor's winding-up application pursuant to section 162(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2003 (BVI) in circumstances where the debt is disputed and is subject to an arbitration agreement?
Last updated: 29 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0076
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:This case concerns the correct interpretation of rules in the Montserrat Companies Act that apply to the disqualification of company directors. In particular, the Privy Council is asked to decide: 1. Whether a court, exercising its power under sections 65 to 67 of the Montserrat Companies Act to disqualify those it deems unfit from being a director, can disqualify a person from holding office in any company in Montserrat or only those companies in which that person previously held office and that had been the subject of an investigation. 2. What the relevant legal test is for deeming an individual to be unfit for managing a company in Montserrat. 3. What weight is to be given to evidence contained a report published by a court appointed investigator, when it is not subject to the stringent rules that apply to expert evidence in legal proceedings when the expert is appointed by the parties. 4. In light of the answers to the above issues, whether the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the Court of Appeal were correct to partially overturn the first instance judge's decision.
Last updated: 29 August 2024
JCPC/2023/0056
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:William Graham Scavella died on 19 November 2012. At the time of his death, he was married to Audrey Flowers (previously Scavella), and they were joint tenants of a property on which they had taken out a mortgage. The couple were jointly and severally liable for the debt. Mr Scavella had a life insurance policy which became payable to his estate when he died. Mr Scavella had previously been married to Gina Scavella, with whom he had had two children.
Last updated: 29 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0077
•
CRIME
Judgment givenCase summary:This case is an appeal against a conviction for murder, on the following grounds: 1. Defence counsel failed to call alibi witnesses at trial; 2. The Judge failed to identify the weaknesses of the prosecution case when summing up; and 3. The Judge failed to give a good character direction to the jury on NM's behalf. The appellant, Nardis Maynard ("NM") submits that on the basis of these factors, his conviction is unsafe and should be quashed.
Last updated: 29 August 2024
JCPC/2021/0114
•
PASTORAL MEASURES
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether, when deciding that a scheme for the dissolution and division of a parish in the Diocese of Southwark should proceed, the Church Commissioners wrongly:(i) failed to consider whether the scheme gave rise to indirect discrimination, contrary to articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, read with article 14, insofar as the scheme would deprive a BAME-majority congregation of a BAME-led ministry; (ii) failed to have due regard to the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; (iii) failed to consider the relevance of race inequality to the scheme's purpose, namely to make better provision for "the cure of souls"; and (iv) wrongly used the scheme to penalise the incumbent reverend for perceived mismanagement.
Last updated: 29 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0100
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Was the presumption of undue influence rebutted in respect of certain transfers of land to Vandyke Jude from his late father, in circumstances that Vandyke acted as his father's lawyer in respect of the transfers?
Last updated: 28 August 2024
JCPC/2023/0070
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Supreme Court err when it held that the 'liberal' approach to standing in environmental cases approved by the UK Supreme Court in Walton v The Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 ought to be adopted by the Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal when assessing whether a party has standing to bring an appeal under section 54(2) of the Environment Protection Act?
Last updated: 28 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0050
•
COURT PROCEDURE
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it is the Court of Appeal, and not the High Court, that is proper forum for appeals under section 88M of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act Ch 48:50 ("the MRTA"), from a decision to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driving permit.
Last updated: 27 August 2024
JCPC/2020/0027
•
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the conviction was unsafe and a serious miscarriage of justice as a result of:The alleged failings of the Judge in his summing up; Alleged breaches of section 10(1) of the Constitution which protects the right to a fair hearing; Certain evidence given by witnesses not under oath; The alleged errors made by the Judge when directing the jury in relation to R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8; An alleged breach of principles of equality and fairness in section 1 of the Constitution by virtue of the way the Appellant was charged in comparison with his co-Defendants. Whether the Appellant received an adequate reduction in the length of sentence in light of the breach of his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Last updated: 27 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0043
•
EMPLOYMENT
Judgment givenCase summary:1. Whether the Special Tribunal is a superior court of record.2. Whether decisions of the Special Tribunal are amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court; and, if so, on what grounds and in what circumstances they may be reviewed.3. Whether, if the decision of the Special Tribunal in the present case was reviewable, it was a lawful decision; and, if not, whether it ought to be set aside.
Last updated: 16 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0083
•
PUBLIC LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS
Judgment givenCase summary:(1) Whether the sanction imposed by the Disciplinary Committee of The General Legal Council, striking the Respondent from the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law entitled to practice law in Jamaica, was an error of law or clearly inappropriate so as to warrant the intervention of the Court of Appeal in setting aside the order and imposing less severe sanctions.(2) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal ought to have deferred to the decision of the Disciplinary Committee.
Last updated: 16 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0074
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether Mauritius Telecom and Cellplus are liable for acts of alleged unfair competition for breaches of (i) the conditions of Cellplus' mobile phone services licence for operations in Mauritius and (ii) conducting a mobile phone services business prior to the issue of this licence.Whether the Information and Communication Technologies Authority is jointly liable for tolerating these breaches or whether it cannot be held liable in tort as it has no distinct legal personality.
Linked casesLegal issue
Last updated: 16 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0073
•
COMMERCIAL
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether Mauritius Telecom and Cellplus are liable for acts of alleged unfair competition for breaches of (i) the conditions of Cellplus' mobile phone services licence for operations in Mauritius and (ii) conducting a mobile phone services business prior to the issue of this licence.Whether the Information and Communication Technologies Authority is jointly liable for tolerating these breaches or whether it cannot be held liable in tort as it has no distinct legal personality.
Linked casesLast updated: 16 August 2024
JCPC/2022/0044
•
BANKING/INSOLVENCY
Judgment givenCase summary:Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Judge's decision: (i) that there was no genuine and substantial dispute in relation to the debt allegedly owed to the Respondent; (ii) that the Respondent was empowered to serve a statutory demand whilst holding security; (iii) to order the winding-up of the Appellant; and (iv) to refuse the motion of the Appellant to adduce fresh evidence in the appeal hearing.
Last updated: 15 August 2024
JCPC/2021/0044
•
TORT
Judgment givenCase summary:Did the Court of Appeal ("CA") err in upholding the trial judge's decision that the Appellant was not entitled to damages for loss of use for its excavator in addition to general and aggravated damages? ("Issue 1")Did the CA err in law by invoking the provisions of section 39 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Chap 4:01 in ordering the Appellant to return the excavator to the Appellant? ("Issue 2")Did the CA err in ordering the Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal as provided for in Part 67.14 CPR as the appeal was on a limited issue of loss of use only, whereas the costs ordered in the High Court was on the value of the entire claim (which was not appealed)? ("Issue 3")
Last updated: 15 August 2024
Sign up for case email alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts when a new case is added by the Court.