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 court ordered the costs of a failed Early Neutral Evaluation to be costs in the case, refusing indemnity costs and declining to shift costs of the costs application.
Devall & Ors v English Electric Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1025 (KB) (01 May 2026)
High Court asbestos claim dismissed: the claimants failed to prove that Mr Devall was exposed to asbestos at Sizewell A during his 1965 placement.
The High Court found the pub operator breached its duty of care to an employee who slipped on tiled flooring, but dismissed the claim for lack of causation.
The High Court held the ETS binding, found GI repudiated it, awarded damages for non-issuance of equity, and rejected the counterclaims.
The EAT dismissed an appeal against rejection of section 15 disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims, holding the tribunal used the right test and could rely on the agreed issues.
Marks and Spencer Financial Services Plc, Re [2026] EWHC 1170 (Ch) (23 March 2026)
The High Court sanctioned a Part VII FSMA banking transfer from Marks and Spencer Financial Services plc to HSBC UK Bank plc, finding no material adverse effect and no regulatory objection.
McKavney v Serco Group PLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 508 (Ch) (10 March 2026)
The High Court dismissed an appeal from the Pensions Ombudsman, holding that a TUPE transfer did not trigger early SPLAS pension payment on later redundancy.
Trayport Ltd v E-Star Trading GmbH & Ors [2026] EWHC 164 (Ch) (06 February 2026)
The High Court set aside service out of jurisdiction, finding the claims were insufficiently pleaded or evidenced in several respects, though some claims could proceed.
The Employment Tribunal's decision to dismiss the complaints was upheld as it was found that the adjustments sought by the appellant went beyond what was reasonable, the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and there was no error of law or perversity in the Tribunal's reasoning. The failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal was not unreasonable as the reasons had already been communicated.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal held DBS made material factual mistakes about alleged falsification of care records and neglect, and ordered CP removed from both barred lists.
Explore more
