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
Security for costs was ordered because the claimant is resident abroad, there is a real risk of non-enforcement of costs orders, the merits do not demonstrate a high probability of success, and there is insufficient evidence that the claim would be stifled by the order.
Source excerpt
AB v Chief Constable of North Wales Police [2026] EWCC 11 (27 March 2026)
The court dismissed a false imprisonment and assault claim arising from an arrest for alleged malicious communications, finding the arrest lawful and the force reasonable.
The court dismissed a claim for false imprisonment and assault/battery, finding the arrest lawful, necessary, properly explained, and carried out with reasonable force.
Choksi v Government of India & Ors [2026] EWHC 217 (KB) (06 February 2026)
The High Court ordered security for costs against an overseas claimant in a personal injury and conspiracy claim, finding real enforcement risks and no sufficient stifling evidence.
The High Court dismissed claims arising from a police encounter with an armed, agitated man, holding the officers’ use of force, arrest process, and pre-handcuffing conduct were lawful.
Curwen v Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary [2026] EWHC 115 (KB) (23 January 2026)
The High Court considered claims arising from a police encounter involving Taser use, PAVA spray, and detention. It rejected false imprisonment but upheld liability on force-related claims.
White v The Chief Constable of Kent Police [2025] EWCC 68 (28 November 2025)
Civil claim over a police-assisted eviction failed except for nominal false imprisonment damages. The court upheld the lawfulness of force used, arrest, and prosecution.
Watson v Chief Constable of Humberside Police [2025] EWHC 2544 (KB) (07 October 2025)
The High Court allowed an appeal in part, setting aside the dismissal of assault, battery and false imprisonment claims, but leaving malicious prosecution dismissed.
The trial judge erred by deciding the case on grounds not pleaded or canvassed, specifically by finding the appellant committed affray and the officers acted in self-defence on a basis not advanced by the respondent. The respondent failed to justify the assault, battery, and false imprisonment within the pleaded case. However, the claim for malicious prosecution failed as the appellant did not challenge findings on identity of prosecutor or malice.
Source excerpt
The police and bailiffs were lawfully authorised by the mortgagee to use reasonable force to enforce the possession order; the claimant, as a trespasser, had no right to resist. The police acted lawfully and proportionately in entering the property, using force, arresting, and detaining the claimant. There was no malicious prosecution or actionable false imprisonment beyond a technical delay in detention review, for which only nominal damages were awarded.
Source excerpt
Explore more
