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
A stay of execution of the costs orders is refused because the undertaking by respondents' solicitors to hold any sums paid in escrow to the order of the court sufficiently protects Ms Gordiy's interests, and there is no sufficient risk of injustice to justify a stay.
Source excerpt
Gordiy v Finadvant Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 773 (Ch) (20 March 2026)
The High Court refused a stay of execution of two costs orders pending appeal, relying on respondents’ undertaking to hold any paid sums in escrow.
Blower v GH Canfield LLP [2025] EWCA Civ 1627 (17 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a professional negligence appeal against solicitors arising from a family bankruptcy settlement, finding no pleaded causal case and no reversible conflict error.
Permission to bring a late appeal was granted because, for the amendments to the partnership returns, the appellant had a good reason for the delay: HMRC’s correspondence reasonably led him to believe he had no right of appeal. For the discovery assessment and penalty, although there was no good reason for the delay, the incremental prejudice to HMRC was small and it would be unjust to refuse permission for 2019-20 when the same factual dispute would be litigated for earlier years. The three-stage Martland test was applied, following Medpro and Pawar, and the balancing exercise favored granti…
Source excerpt
The High Court refused to let a committal application proceed over an alleged breach of a freezing order, finding continuation disproportionate in the circumstances.
National Bank Trust v Pishchulina [2025] EWHC 1807 (Comm) (15 July 2025)
The High Court refused to let a committal application proceed over an alleged breach of a worldwide freezing order, holding that further contempt proceedings would be disproportionate.
His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v Hardy [2024] EWHC 3306 (Admin) (19 December 2024)
The High Court made a three-year all proceedings order against Mr Hardy under section 42, with Vaidya terms and costs awarded to the Attorney General.
Mr Hardy has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, made vexatious applications, and instituted vexatious prosecutions. The cumulative effect of his litigation conduct justifies the making of an all proceedings order under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, including Vaidya terms, for a period of three years. The order is proportionate, does not infringe the essence of his Article 6 rights, and bankruptcy proceedings are within the scope of section 42.
Source excerpt
The court found that the £150,000 transfer and the 2017/2018 transfers were loans made jointly to Ms Coe and Mr McCourt, repayable with 12% interest, and not gifts. The £50,000 transfer from Sound and Vision was a loan to Mr McCourt alone. The 2020 transfers and the £6,000 cash payment were gifts. There was no binding agreement to secure the loans on property. The evidence did not support Ms Coe’s claim that the payments were gifts, nor Mr McCourt’s claim that the funds came from Maggie Oldham.
Source excerpt
Durrani & Anor v Coe & Anor [2024] EWHC 2912 (KB) (15 November 2024)
High Court judgment on disputed family and business money transfers, distinguishing loans from gifts and deciding joint liability, interest, and repayment terms.
Explore more
