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 High Court ordered the claimant in contempt proceedings to pay indemnity costs, ordered £215,000 on account, and refused permission to appeal.
The court approved a child personal injury settlement but allowed only £330 plus VAT for a CFA success fee and disallowed the ATE premium as unreasonable.
Relief from sanctions was refused because the costs budget filed by IPS Law LLP and Mr Farnell was incoherent, contained figures apparently copied from the claimant's budget, and was verified by a statement of truth despite being fundamentally flawed. The breach was serious and substantial, and the response to the breach was wholly unsatisfactory, undermining the integrity of the budgeting process and the administration of justice.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal referred counsel to the Bar Standards Board after finding he used ChatGPT-produced false citations without verification and tried to mislead the tribunal.
Mex Group Worldwide Ltd v Duthie & Anor (No. 2: Costs) [2025] EWHC 1725 (KB) (09 July 2025)
The High Court ordered Mex Group to pay 75% of the defendants’ costs, with a 25% discount for partial success and £91,350 on account.
Despite defence counsel's incompetence and refusal to cross-examine the principal witness, the appellant was not prejudiced; the trial judge's directions were fair, the appellant's case was properly placed before the jury, and the conviction is safe.
Source excerpt
There is a common issue across the class regarding liability for secret commissions and breach of fiduciary duty, and no relevant conflict of interest; the claim is sufficiently pleaded for representative proceedings; the Court should not exercise its discretion to bar CRL from acting as representative as the litigation is not futile and common issues can be resolved on a representative basis.
Source excerpt
The Court found that there was no deliberate or material breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure by the claimant or his solicitors. Any omission regarding the First Defendant's involvement in the letter to RPC was at most innocent and not material enough to warrant discharge of the freezing order and proprietary injunction. The evidence did not support allegations of fraud, dishonesty, or abuse of position by the claimant's solicitors.
Source excerpt
Brealey v Shepherd & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 303 (26 March 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal about a solicitor-executor’s fees, holding that written agreement of all executors was required and refusing inherent relief.
Hulme v Handley Law Ltd [2023] EWHC 616 (SCCO) (09 March 2023)
The court held that the solicitor was entitled to terminate the retainer over credibility concerns and was entitled to payment for work done before termination.
Explore more
