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 allowed an amendment to add a deceit claim, holding it was not arguably time-barred because loss from an unsecured guarantee arose only on demand.
The High Court held that Neil Macpherson was a de facto and shadow director, the company was insolvent, and most challenged payments were recoverable.
Failure to pay the correct court fee at the time of delivering the claim form does not prevent an action from being 'brought' for limitation purposes; the action is brought when the claim form is received by the court office, irrespective of fee payment, and the court had no jurisdiction to grant relief to backdate issue or deem the claim brought on an earlier date.
Source excerpt
Kay v Martineau Johnson (a firm) [2026] EWCA Civ 224 (05 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that Ms Kay’s negligence claim against her former solicitors was not statute-barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.
Lukins & Anor v Quality Part X Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 301 (KB) (18 February 2026)
The High Court held that legally represented claimants who filed by post instead of mandatory e-filing had not brought their claims in time, so the tort claims were time-barred.
The High Court struck out a fraud-based claim to set aside an earlier limitation ruling, holding the issue was already litigated and the new expert evidence was not enough.
Massa v Formula One Management Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3064 (KB) (20 November 2025)
The High Court considered Felipe Massa’s claim arising from the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix crash, including alleged duties to investigate, conspiracy, limitation and declaratory relief.
The claim in respect of the Sun Online Article is time-barred under the one-year limitation period and the Claimant has no realistic prospect of succeeding in postponing or excluding the limitation period. The claims in respect of the MyLondon Article and Mirror Online Article are not struck out as there is a realistic prospect that the manner of publication was materially different, requiring determination at trial.
Source excerpt
The court found the claimant to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his account of the assaults. The delay in bringing the claim was justified and reasonable, with no prejudice to the defendant. The entirety of the claimant's psychiatric injury was caused by the assaults. The court exercised its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed and awarded £70,000 in general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity.
Source excerpt
Mahmod v ITV Plc [2025] EWHC 2114 (KB) (08 August 2025)
The High Court held that ITV’s documentary and drama did not imply Ari Mahmod was involved in his niece’s rape, only that he was responsible for her murder, and dismissed the defamation claim.
Explore more
