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 Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal from the Registrar’s order, holding the appeal could proceed despite timing issues and procedural irregularity.
The Court of Appeal refused to reopen a permission decision in an employment discrimination case, holding there was no inconsistency with Higgs and no CPR 52.30 basis.
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Ors v The Republic of India [2026] EWHC 414 (Comm) (25 February 2026)
The Commercial Court construed a prior order in Devas/India litigation as allowing Dutch-law expert evidence on procedural fairness of the Indian Supreme Court judgment.
On a proper construction of the Teare Order and the Judgment, the parties are permitted to adduce Dutch law expert evidence on the procedural fairness (or otherwise) of the ISCJ as part of the Dutch law criteria for recognition in the Revocation 2 proceedings. If this were not so, the court would grant a variation to allow such evidence. The declaration sought by the Applicants is refused as it would serve no useful purpose.
Source excerpt
The omission to supply the case management order was a minor error under rule 37(5), but the appeal was academic as the underlying claims had been dismissed and no real prospect existed for reinstatement; therefore, permission to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
Findings of default are not a legal precondition for making unless orders; the judge acted within his wide case management discretion in imposing general unless orders to ensure compliance with disclosure obligations in large-scale multi-party litigation; the orders were proportionate, lawful, and rationally connected to the legitimate aim of progressing litigation and ensuring fair lead claimant selection; extension of time for appeal was refused due to significant delay and lack of good reason; permission to appeal was refused as grounds lacked merit.
Source excerpt
Hughes & Ors v World Rugby Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3382 (KB) (22 December 2025)
Appeals in rugby head injury litigation were dismissed. The High Court upheld unless orders and disclosure directions in multi-party proceedings, holding no prior default finding was required.
It was an error of law to strike out the appellant's claims without considering whether a fair trial remained possible and without first making an unless order; the appeal is allowed and the claims reinstated.
Source excerpt
The EAT rejected appeals against refusals to extend time, reconsider the ET judgment, and correct it under the slip rule, finding no arguable error of law.
The Employment Judge failed to consider relevant factors, including the claimant’s extension requests and the proportionality of a strike out. The omission was not deliberate, and the respondent suffered minimal prejudice. The strike out was not justified and amounted to an error of law.
Source excerpt
Explore more
