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 dismissed applications to strike out a claim, discharge injunctions, and require fortification. Covert recordings were admitted only for the applications.
Shiloh is bound by the 2024 Judgment as a privy and by abuse of process; the funds used to acquire the properties can be traced to assets misappropriated from Umbrella; all elements of knowing receipt are established against Shiloh, including knowledge attributable from Mr and Mrs Oronsaye; Shiloh's defences are wholly without merit; summary judgment is granted for Umbrella establishing a constructive trust over the properties in the specified proportions.
Source excerpt
Patel v Minerva Services Delaware, Inc. & Ors [2024] EWHC 172 (Ch) (05 February 2024)
The High Court allowed most of a proposed amendment to plead malicious prosecution and abuse of process in an unlawful means conspiracy claim, including in relation to foreign proceedings.
The Court of Appeal held that Stone & Rolls’ claim against its auditors was barred by ex turpi causa because it relied on the company’s own fraud.
Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 3249 (Ch) (15 December 2006)
The High Court held that section 348 FSMA does not bar disclosure of FSA interview transcripts insofar as they record information already known to the recipient, subject to redaction of protected material.
The High Court held that section 348 FSMA does not bar disclosure of FSA interview transcripts to the extent they record information already known to the recipient, subject to redaction.
3M United Kingdom Plc & Anor v Linklaters & Paines [2005] EWHC 1382 (Ch) (01 July 2005)
A solicitors’ negligence claim was held time-barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 because the claimants had the necessary knowledge by 30 August 1995.
Bank of India v Morris & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 836 (22 June 2005)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, ordered Bank of India to pay 80% of the liquidators’ appeal costs, and refused permission to appeal.
The Court of Appeal refused permission on a conspiracy issue and upheld refusal of relief from sanctions after deliberate non-compliance with unless orders.
Explore more
