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
Kyte v MclAren Automotive Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC) (19 May 2026)
The High Court struck out inadequately particularised contract and negligence claims over a car fire, but allowed time to amend the pleadings.
The High Court struck out a vehicle fire claim for inadequate pleading, holding that the claimant had not sufficiently particularised breach, causation, or negligence.
The Court of Appeal (majority) held that Professor Roberts's claim for abuse of dominance was barred by section 18(8) WIA because the alleged abuse—misleading Ofwat by under-reporting pollution incidents—depended on the existence and breach of the statutory reporting obligation, making the contravention of licence conditions an essential ingredient of the claim. The claim could not be established independently of the regulatory regime, and thus section 18(8) excluded the remedy sought.
Source excerpt
Euro Car Parks Ltd v Competition & Markets Authority [2026] EWHC 471 (KB) (11 February 2026)
The High Court refused Euro Car Parks’ application to stop the CMA publishing an unredacted enforcement notice, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interim restraint.
After the Stage 1 Trial, the court ordered BHP to pay 90% of the claimants’ costs, awarded £43 million on account, granted pre-judgment interest, and refused permission to appeal.
The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that her illness was caused by cyclospora contracted from hotel food or drink. The judge was entitled to prefer the national reference laboratory's negative test and the respondent's expert evidence. There was no evidence of a general outbreak or breakdown in hotel hygiene, and causation was not established. The judge gave adequate reasons and did not misunderstand or misapply the evidence.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found Home London Ltd was a letting agent and that holding deposits were fees that had to be published, but reduced both financial penalties to £2,500.
The court dismissed Ryanair’s jurisdiction challenge, holding that passengers could use a third party to submit an initial EU261 claim under the airline’s terms.
The defendant breached the contract by failing to provide a usable yurt, did not use best endeavours, and failed to perform with reasonable skill and care as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The yurt was not fit for purpose, and the goods and services did not conform to the contract. The defendant could not rely on force majeure or adverse weather clauses, as the failure was due to its own method of erection, not weather. The claimants are entitled to a refund of the sum paid for the yurt and compensation for non-pecuniary loss under sections 24 and/or 56 of the 2015 Act.
Source excerpt
Crane & Anor v Yorkshire Yurts Ltd [2025] EWCC 63 (31 October 2025)
County Court claim over an unusable wedding yurt. The court found breach of contract and Consumer Rights Act terms, awarding a refund and compensation for disappointment.
Explore more
