Welcome to the Turks and Caicos Islands LII
TCILII is a website of the Judiciary and publishes judgments from the Turks and Caicos Islands for free online access.
TCILII is a website of the Judiciary of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Judicial Links
Recent Judgments
|
Refusal to grant residence permit to same‑sex spouse found discriminatory; court ordered permit issued, refusing to amend marriage law.
Constitutional law — discrimination (sexual orientation) — sections 7, 9, 16 — interpretation of “spouse” in Immigration Ordinance to include foreign same‑sex marriages — section 10 as lex specialis on right to marry — remedial powers under section 21(2) — courts may fashion effective relief — costs: appellate review of discretionary costs orders (plainly wrong test).
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Appeal dismissed: strong DNA and circumstantial evidence supported convictions; stays and procedural complaints failed.
Abuse of process – stay applications; Disclosure obligations – materiality and relevance; DNA evidence – admissibility, contradictory reports, and jury directions; Circumstantial evidence and no‑case submissions; Procedural irregularities and material irregularity test; Joint enterprise and good‑character directions.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Joint custody granted but day‑to‑day care and control awarded to respondent as being in the children’s best interests.
* Family law – custody and day‑to‑day care – welfare and best interests under Family Law Act – welfare checklist and children’s wishes
* Child welfare – evidence from social services, psychological assessments and Magistrate’s findings weighed in custody decision
* Siblings – principle against separation unless necessary; holistic welfare balancing exercise
* Joint custody – maintained while day‑to‑day care and control awarded to respondent
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Court ordered defendants to disclose specific witness statements under Ord.24 r.7; no evidence the DPP letter existed.
* Civil procedure – discovery – Order 24 r.7 – applicant must show prima facie that specific documents exist, relate to matters in issue, and are in opponent’s possession, custody or power. * Legal professional privilege – communications between police and DPP examined; privilege may arise only if relationship tantamount to client-lawyer exists. * Court’s inherent jurisdiction – inspection under confidential cover to determine whether r.7 affidavit should be ordered. * Specific disclosure ordered for identified witness statements; DPP letter not shown to exist.
|
25 September 2025 |
|
Applicant lawfully placed on Stop List for prolonged immigration breaches; work permit does not override Stop List; review dismissed.
Immigration law – Stop List – statutory power to prohibit entry where person conducted themselves "undesirably" – placing name on Stop List lawful where long-term breach of permits; work permit does not negate Stop List; no general right to prior notice of Stop List placement for persons outside jurisdiction; Governor may direct removal but no evidence of such direction here; refusal to accept renewal and claims for damages not established.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
A strata corporation’s blanket no‑pet by‑law was upheld as valid and not ultra vires, constitutional challenge dismissed.
Strata law – By‑laws – Validity of blanket no‑pet by‑law; ultra vires challenge under section 20 STA; constitutional claim under section 17(1) (peaceful enjoyment of property) dismissed; comparative consideration of Cooper (NSW) but different statutory regimes.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
Court refused to sanction a damages‑based 'no win, no fee' agreement, finding DBAs champertous absent legislation.
Damages‑based agreements (DBAs) – champerty and maintenance – Criminal Law Act ss9–10 preserve public policy against champerty – Regulation 23 Code of Professional Conduct prohibits significant pecuniary interest by counsel – indemnity principle and costs recovery – access to justice does not justify judicial creation of DBAs – legislative reform required.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
The Governor's refusal to grant naturalisation was quashed due to procedural unfairness and unlawful fettering of discretion.
Administrative law – judicial review – procedural fairness – refusal of naturalisation – exercise of statutory discretion – legitimate expectation – reliance on policy guidance – mandatory considerations – British Nationality Act 1981 – residency and immigration breach requirements – separation of discretionary powers – fair notice of reliance on policy – natural justice.
|
13 August 2025 |
| 18 July 2025 | |
| 11 July 2025 |
Recent Legislation
| Practice Direction 1 of 2025 | 4 August 2025 | |
| Legal Notice 29 of 2022 | 5 May 2025 | |
| Legal Notice 15 of 2025 | 5 May 2025 | |
| Legal Notice 12 of 2023 | 5 May 2025 | |
| Legal Notice 16 of 2025 | 5 May 2025 | |
| Legal Notice 3 of 2025 | 7 February 2025 | |
| Legal Notice 61 of 2024 | 2 December 2024 | |
| Government Notice 51 of 2021 | 22 November 2024 | |
| Legal Notice 58 of 2024 | 22 November 2024 | |
| Practice Direction 1 of 2024 | 10 June 2024 |