A weekly, fully automated tracker of substantive civil common law developments across the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, and the Privy Council. Criminal, family, immigration, constitutional, and procedural matters are excluded by design. Last updated 26 September 2026.
4 items
The court held that the claim was a nullity because the first defendant, the Ministry of Sport, was not a legal entity and therefore could not be sued.
Read the judgment →The JCPC confirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that the damages awarded to Fenris should be the lower amount and that the period of loss ended with the 2012 judgment, rejecting the appellant’s challenge to the calculation and timing of damages.
Read the judgment →The court held that a third‑party litigation cost award arising from a litigation‑funding agreement is enforceable in Mauritius unless it is contrary to public policy, and therefore the arbitral award can be recognized and enforced.
Read the judgment →The court found that the bank breached the contract by failing to execute the foreign‑exchange conversion as instructed, and that the appellant had not reasonably mitigated its loss.
Read the judgment →1 item
The court held that the appellant’s negligent treatment was the cause of the respondent’s wife’s death.
Read the judgment →4 items
The court held that the sale of the Kingston property was invalid because the respondents had breached their fiduciary duties under the trust arrangement.
Read the judgment →The court held that the Respondent had not established documentary title to the contested parcel, and therefore the Appellant’s possessory title was not overridden by any defective title the Respondent might have claimed.
Read the judgment →The court held that the restrictive agreements granting access to the golf course, tennis courts and beach facilities remain binding on the current owners of the land, so the appellants retain those rights.
Read the judgment →The Privy Council held that the respondent was not required to obtain the best possible price when selling the secured yacht, and therefore its sale did not breach its duty of reasonable care.
Read the judgment →1 item
The court held that a director who authorises preferential payments that cause a loss to the general body of creditors can be held liable for equitable compensation, even if the company itself suffers no net loss.
Read the judgment →The weekly civil common law tracker you're reading right now.
You are here → HomeBack to the holding — Mafic, Syllables, NanoBots, and the rest of the ventures.
Visit home → Legal techAI-assisted legal drafting and research, with case search and a bilingual Bangla/English interface.
Visit site → AboutWho builds all this, and why.
About the dev →