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 restrained presentation of a winding-up petition because the statutory demand was genuinely disputed, including over total failure of consideration and cross-claims.
Soundwave Studios Music Group Ltd v Visage Group Management Ltd [2026] EWHC 1068 (Ch) (21 May 2026)
The High Court restrained a winding-up petition, finding a genuine and substantial dispute over whether a music production contract had totally failed in consideration.
Sousou Connect Ltd v Abel [2026] EWHC 665 (Comm) (20 March 2026)
The High Court dismissed SCL’s claim that an oral capital-introduction deal was struck at Annabel’s, and rejected its alternative quantum meruit claim.
Claim for a capital-introduction success fee dismissed; no oral contract proved and no quantum meruit recovery allowed beyond the retainer.
The Court of Appeal struck out Tyburn’s unjust enrichment claim against Lunak and Lucasfilm, holding there was no transfer of value from Tyburn to them.
The High Court refused permission to rewrite the pleadings and add a new defendant, discharged an unused freezing injunction by consent, and dismissed the claim.
Evonik UK Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2025] EWCA Civ 1392 (07 November 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that HMRC was not entitled to restitutionary interest after a summary judgment payment was set aside, and upheld crediting the payment against accrued interest.
The Commercial Court dismissed RMK’s quantum meruit claim, holding the Advisory Agreement covered the work and barred restitution for extra payment.
RMK Maritime (Europe) Ltd & Anor v CMB.Tech NV [2025] EWHC 2739 (Comm) (23 October 2025)
The Commercial Court dismissed RMK’s claim for US$11.7m, holding its advisory work fell within the written agreement and no restitutionary recovery was available.
The defendant did not benefit from the £60,000 paid into his account, did not actively collude or participate in the bond arrangement, and was not enriched at the claimant's expense; no trust or restitutionary claim lies against him.
Source excerpt
Explore more
