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 Commercial Court held that JLL’s valuation was a contractual valuation under the facilities agreement, despite criticism of the process, so the Cash Trap Event stood.
The EAT dismissed Mr Amin’s appeal, upholding strike-out for non-payment of deposit orders and rejecting challenges to refusal of relief, postponement, and alleged bias.
Romans, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 27 (28 January 2026)
The Parole Board refused Romans’ application for reconsideration, finding no irrationality or procedural unfairness in the panel’s refusal to direct release.
Ajana v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 3179 (Admin) (03 December 2025)
The High Court dismissed a midwife’s appeal against an NMC striking-off order, holding the panel had properly assessed misconduct, mitigation, risk and sanction.
The trial judge acted within her discretion and followed proper procedures in discharging J10 and refusing to discharge the whole jury or J5; there was no evidence of actual or apparent bias sufficient to render the convictions unsafe.
Source excerpt
The EAT refused an extension of time for a late appeal, holding that brief delay caused by disorganisation did not outweigh significant prejudice to the respondent.
Kumar v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 3017 (Admin) (17 November 2025)
The High Court dismissed Dr Kumar’s appeal against his erasure from the medical register, upholding the Tribunal’s findings on insight, sanction, and process.
The High Court dismissed Dr Kumar’s appeal against erasure by the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal, rejecting challenges to evidence, sanction, bias, and Article 3.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal against revocation of an operator’s licence and transport manager disqualification, rejecting claims of procedural unfairness, bias, and legal error.
The Defendant did not err in law in its interpretation of the development plan, its assessment of the bridge as a standalone project for EIA purposes, its advice to committee members, its handling of lobbying and site visits, its separation of powers arrangements, or its omission of the 2016 feasibility report; all grounds of challenge failed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
