Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because the statutory conditions for appeal under section 44 of the Pensions Act 2008 were not met; no review was conducted by the Regulator within the prescribed period, and presumptions of service apply to notices sent to the business address.
Source excerpt
The correct test for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal under s.289(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the first appeals test in CPR 52.6, not the second appeals test in CPR 52.7, because s.55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 does not impliedly repeal the specific provision in s.289(6) and Parliament has not expressly required the second appeals test for this category of appeal.
Source excerpt
Claims in conversion are struck out as English law does not permit conversion of intangible property such as Bitcoin; trespass to goods is not struck out at this stage pending possible amendment; security for costs is refused due to overwhelming evidence, assets within jurisdiction, and unreliable cost estimates; substituted service is granted for Second Defendant.
Source excerpt
The grant of new residence status under Article 18.1 WA confers Title II Part 2 WA rights prospectively, not retrospectively; Late Beneficiaries' pre-application residence is not rendered lawful under the WA. The indirect discrimination in NHS charging is justified by the legitimate aim of promoting and ensuring the integrity of the UK's constitutive scheme under Article 18.1 WA.
Source excerpt
The Panel's findings on the content and effect of the telephone calls were adequately reasoned and within the range of reasonable decisions, but its decision to impose a final written warning rather than dismissal was inadequately explained and inconsistent with its own findings regarding the failure to follow a superior officer's advice and the seriousness of the harm, thus requiring the outcome decision to be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
The court found compelling evidence of flagrant breaches of planning control causing significant harm to the Green Belt, with insufficient evidence from Defendants regarding hardship or alternative accommodation. The planning application was invalid and did not reflect actual site conditions. The Council had adequately considered welfare and equality duties. Injunctive relief was necessary and proportionate to prevent ongoing harm, and the terms of the injunction were clear, tailored, and justified both for named Defendants and Persons Unknown.
Source excerpt
The just case management solution is to hear the remitted matters and the claimant’s summary judgment application separately and sequentially, with the remitted matters first, and not to stay the summary judgment application, balancing the interests of both parties and avoiding undue prejudice to other litigants.
Source excerpt
None of the allegations of sexual or physical abuse by F against A were established on the balance of probabilities. There is no evidence that M encouraged or pressurised A to make false disclosures or engaged in alienating behaviour. M did seek to restrict Mr R's professional involvement with A, but this did not amount to alienation. A's refusal to see F is not justified by F's behaviour, nor is it proved to be caused by alienation by M.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted Microsoft Norwich Pharmacal relief against Oxide Group Limited to identify users and operators of RedVDS.com and preserve evidence.
Summary judgment is refused because the contractual construction is difficult, the factual matrix is incomplete and disputed, and there is a real prospect that further evidence at trial could materially affect the outcome. The contract is poorly drafted and contains internal tensions regarding the definition and scope of 'Prospective Investors', and the exclusions in Schedules A and B. The court's preliminary view is that the Placement Fee is likely limited to investors introduced by Quest, but this is not definitively decided at this stage.
Source excerpt
Explore more
