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
Affleck v The Royal Borough of Windsor And Maidenhead [2026] EWHC 1137 (Admin) (15 May 2026)
The High Court granted permission for judicial review over a council’s refusal to let a claimant ask an oral supplementary question, extending time and finding an arguable Article 10 issue.
Blackpool Borough Council v RR & Ors [2026] EWHC 1100 (Fam) (14 May 2026)
The court ruled on publication and anonymisation in care proceedings, ordering publication of the judgments with only RR and her father anonymised.
EF v The London Borough of Hackney & Anor [2026] EWCOP 20 (T3) (05 May 2026)
Appeal dismissed against refusal to discharge a Court of Protection Transparency Order preserving anonymity and reporting restrictions in P’s welfare proceedings.
Appeal dismissed against refusal to discharge a Court of Protection Transparency Order. The judge held the order proportionately protected P’s privacy and placement stability.
Idziak v Merlin Entertainment PLC & Anor [2026] EWCC 24 (30 April 2026)
The County Court refused the claimant’s post-trial application for anonymity, holding that open justice prevailed and the evidence did not justify derogation.
National Crime Agency v GKC (No.2) [2026] EWHC 929 (Admin) (24 April 2026)
The Administrative Court discharged interim anonymity and reporting restrictions in UWO/IFO proceedings, holding that open justice prevailed over Article 8 concerns.
Thompson & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin) (21 April 2026)
The High Court dismissed a challenge to the Metropolitan Police’s overt live facial recognition policy, holding it was sufficiently clear and constrained under Articles 8, 10 and 11 ECHR.
Ofcom's imposition of financial penalties for serious and repeated breaches of fairness and privacy rules was lawful, proportionate, and justified under Article 10 ECHR. The statutory regime treats standards and fairness/privacy breaches equivalently for sanction purposes. Wider deterrence is a valid objective even after licence revocation. Star China's public law defences are not excluded by necessary implication. The penalties imposed were not excessive or irrational.
Source excerpt
Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd & Ors v Okunola [2026] EWCA Civ 138 (20 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal held it had power to restrain abusive communications to lawyers, but refused the injunction because it was too broad and no longer necessary.
Prior & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Police Federation of England and Wales [2026] EWHC 124 (Admin) (26 January 2026)
Judicial review of PFEW disciplinary decisions succeeded for Mr Prior in full and partly for Mr Cooke, with the court finding procedural unfairness and Article 10 defects.
Explore more
