On June 29, 2016, in R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the U.K. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge brought by Chagos Islanders against the House of Lords decision from 2008 regarding their expulsion from their homes in the British Indian Ocean Territories (BIOT). According to the press release, the U.K. granted the U.S. permission to build a military base on the largest of the Chagos Islands, Diego Garcia, in 1966, and issued an ordinance that made it unlawful for the islanders to remain on Diego Garcia. They were subsequently resettled. In 2000, the Divisional Court ruled that the ordinance expelling the Chagossians was unlawful. A study on the feasibility of resettling the islanders in the BIOT was concluded in 2002 and found that resettlement would be cost prohibitive and life conditions there precarious, which led to a 2004 order reaffirming the prohibition of settlement on the Chagos Islands. After a challenge to the 2004 order failed before the House of Lords in 2008, the current lawsuit argued that the Foreign Secretary breached his duty of candor in public law proceedings and failed to disclose information to the House of Lords relating to the 2008 decision, and that four new pieces of evidence justify setting aside the 2008 decision. The Court acknowledged that it “has inherent jurisdiction to correct injustice caused by an unfair procedure which leads to an earlier judgment or is revealed by the discovery of fresh evidence,” and analyzed whether the prompt disclosure of the documents would have led to a successful challenge in the 2008 proceedings. It concluded “that there is no probability, likelihood, prospect or real possibility that a court would have seen, or would now see, anything which could, would or should have caused the respondent to doubt the conclusions of the [] report, or made it irrational or otherwise unjustifiable to act on them.” The Court also dismissed the four new articles evidence, finding that none provided a basis for setting aside the previous judgment.  Finally, the Court noted that the results of a new feasibility study in 2014/2015, which found that resettlement could be achieved, now allow any Chagossian “to mount a fresh challenge to the failure to abrogate the 2004 orders in the light of the 2014-15 study’s findings, as an alternative to further lengthy litigation.”