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
Actinon Pte Ltd v Char Biocarbon Inc [2026] EWHC 94 (Comm) (21 January 2026)
Commercial Court summary judgment decision on an exclusive licence dispute: the court held the defendant had affirmed the agreement, rejected rescission, and awarded $635,810, while dismissing reverse summary judgment on Year 4 royalties.
Permission to amend the defence was granted as the amendment clarified the defendants' case and was not prejudicial. Disclosure was ordered only on genuinely disputed, material issues. Narrative documents were ordered for issues relating to alleged representations (issues 10 and 11) due to the deceit claim, but not for the loss and damage issue (issue 27) to avoid unnecessary disclosure. Certain proposed disclosure issues were refused as not being key or genuinely disputed.
Source excerpt
Electric Mania Ltd v Avron Trading Ltd [2025] EWHC 159 (Comm) (29 January 2025)
A hand-sanitiser reseller sued for misrepresentation and breach of contract after MHRA intervention. The court held the products were not medicinal products and dismissed the claim.
The Defendants failed to demonstrate that the present proceedings are abusive; there was no procedural bar or agreement precluding future claims, and the circumstances do not amount to unjust harassment.
Source excerpt
The guarantees were not induced by any actionable misrepresentation. Representations made by Decisive's representatives were statements of opinion or intention, not fact, and Dr Alanizi was equally or better placed to assess the risks. No actionable misrepresentation occurred under common law or the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The guarantees are valid and enforceable obligations.
Source excerpt
The sale particulars, read as a whole, did not constitute a misrepresentation of fact or opinion regarding development potential. Any implied representation was too vague to have legal consequences, and the Claimant was not in a stronger position to know the planning status. The Defendant's reliance was not justified and the appeal fails.
Source excerpt
There was no valid exchange of contracts as the claimant's solicitor did not hold a signed contract at the time of purported exchange, failing section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Alternatively, the contract was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation as to the claimant being a cash buyer, entitling the defendant to set aside the contract.
Source excerpt
Mr Welsh misrepresented to Mr Hamilton the nature of the account and control over funds, inducing investment. Mr and Mrs Barrow, as partners, are jointly and severally liable for Mr Welsh's acts done in the ordinary course of partnership business. A contract existed between Mr Hamilton and the Currency Club partnership, breached by the defendants. Mr Hamilton relied on the misrepresentation and would not have invested had he known the true position.
Source excerpt
The franchise agreement, properly construed, granted the claimants a limited exclusivity to use the Pitman brand in the territory, but not absolute exclusivity. The only breach found was the provision of Pitman-branded certificates by Derby, but this did not cause any loss to the claimants as Derby's customers were not potential customers of the claimants. There was no actionable misrepresentation, and any claim for negligent or innocent misrepresentation was excluded by reasonable exclusion clauses. The claimants were not entitled to rescind or terminate the agreement, and no recoverable los…
Source excerpt
BCL breached an express term of the settlement agreement by failing to enter into a contract to sell Portland House to KEL as soon as reasonably practicable. Alternatively, BCL breached implied terms that it could and would sell or cause the sale of the property. BCL also made actionable misrepresentations during mediation that it owned the property and could sell it, which induced the Claimants to enter the agreement. The Claimants suffered some loss as a result. Judicial proceedings immunity barred reliance on pleadings as a cause of action, but not as context. The without prejudice rule di…
Source excerpt
Explore more
