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 determined preliminary issues in a COVID-19 business interruption dispute over policy construction, notification, causation, and estoppel.
Grimes (t/a The Cleveland Arms) & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2026] EWHC 1195 (Comm) (20 May 2026)
Commercial Court preliminary issues in COVID-19 business interruption claims concerning policy construction, causation, notification, and estoppel.
The Privy Council held that disputed pipeline works were not variations under a lump sum FIDIC contract and dismissed the contractor’s claim for non-compliance with claim procedures.
Commercial Court judgment on a wet lease dispute: the court construed audit and approvals clauses, rejecting Fibula’s defences and upholding Just Us’s counterclaim.
Alaska Airlines Inc v Virgin Aviation TM Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 2505 (Comm) (03 October 2025)
The High Court held the minimum royalty under the Virgin trade mark licence was not severable for exclusivity alone, rejected Alaska’s restitution-based defence, and granted summary judgment.
Dandara South East Ltd v Medway Preservation Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3639 (Ch) (10 July 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding there was no real prospect of showing manifest error in the expert’s determination.
The Second Defendant was in breach of Claims Conditions 2 and 3.5 by failing to notify the Third Defendant of the incident and relevant correspondence. Compliance with these Claims Conditions was a condition precedent to the Third Defendant’s liability. Therefore, the Third Defendant was entitled as of right to refuse indemnity under the policy, and the Claimant’s claim fails under the 2010 Act.
Source excerpt
Disclosure and Barring Service v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 380 (04 April 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that clause 6.1 was a condition precedent, so DBS could not recover Delay Payments without first issuing an NCR.
The Court of Appeal held that clause 6.1 of an IT services agreement was a condition precedent. DBS’s failure to issue Non-conformance Reports barred its delay-payment claim.
The MR is not a severable payment solely for the Exclusivity Obligation but a floor for the single payment obligation covering the full bundle of Airline Rights. The no set-off clause in clause 8.9.1 precludes Alaska from relying on restitutionary defences at summary judgment. Compliance with the Exclusivity Obligation is not a condition precedent nor an implied term for MR payment. Virgin is entitled to summary judgment for the MR up to 23 September 2022.
Source excerpt
Explore more
