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
Decisions matching the current search
The Upper Tribunal found increased physical factors from highway improvements affected the property and awarded £10,000 compensation for depreciation in value.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) determined £29,933,000 compensation for compulsory acquisition loss of profits, rejecting a constant-margin approach to costs.
Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber set compensation at £150,000 for a compulsorily acquired house, with no disturbance award and no basic loss payment.
The Upper Tribunal held that Quintain’s proposed CAAD scheme was too tall, massed and flexible to merit planning permission, and ordered a certificate in the respondent’s form.
The Defendant failed to ask herself the correct questions regarding the Claimant’s eligibility for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, specifically by not properly considering the application of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Immigration Rules to the Claimant’s circumstances in 1999. This constituted a public law error and ground 2 of the claim succeeded.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal erred in its causation analysis under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and remitted AK’s case for rehearing.
The Upper Tribunal allowed only part of a claim for disturbance compensation, reducing solicitors’ professional fees to what was reasonably incurred.
The present action is not, per se, an impermissible collateral attack on previous decisions, as actions to set aside judgments for fraud are permitted exceptions to the finality principle. However, the question of whether the claimant's prior election not to pursue fraud bars the present action is not sufficiently articulated or established and may require determination as a preliminary issue. The plea of 'nullity' is legally unsustainable and is struck out.
Source excerpt
Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Abdulali & Anor [2024] EWHC 1722 (Ch) (05 July 2024)
The High Court held that ex gratia GLO Scheme compensation for discharged bankrupt postmasters did not vest in the bankruptcy estate and was not caught by the assignment terms.
Entitlement to compensation under the GLO Scheme is not property vested in the trustees in bankruptcy because it did not exist at the commencement of bankruptcy and is not sufficiently connected to the original causes of action; the Assignment deed does not entitle trustees to a share of GLO Scheme compensation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
