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 Court of Appeal upheld setting aside a consent financial remedy order for deliberate non-disclosure and rejected an intervenor’s bid to recover gifts from the husband.
K v K [2026] EWFC 83 (B) (09 March 2026)
The Family Court dismissed the husband’s application to set aside a financial remedy consent order, rejecting claims of lack of capacity, duress, fraud, and non-disclosure.
Completion of detailed assessment proceedings by consent for a sum more advantageous than a Part 36 offer constitutes 'judgment' for the purposes of CPR r.36.17, triggering Part 36 consequences unless unjust, which was not argued or established.
Source excerpt
The costs incurred before 29 September 2022 and expert evidence fees are within the scope of the consent order, as the broad wording permits recovery of costs connected to the principal dispute, and the costs were reasonably incurred at the time.
Source excerpt
PM, R (On the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] EWHC 419 (SCCO) (24 February 2026)
The court held that CPR Part 36 consequences applied to a detailed assessment completed by consent, where the agreed sum was more advantageous than the claimant’s offer.
The Upper Tribunal allowed this SDLT appeal by consent, set aside the First-tier Tribunal decision for material error of law, and granted overpayment relief.
The High Court held that a consent order settling damages can count as judgment for CPR 36.17, so Part 36 costs consequences applied from the offer date.
Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3274 (KB) (10 December 2025)
The High Court held that a consent order settling damages can count as a judgment for CPR 36.17, so the claimant’s Part 36 costs consequences ran from 8 November 2021.
There has been a significant change in circumstances since the 2020 consent order. The respondent is currently over-provided for relative to her needs, and the applicant can afford a reduced but still substantial maintenance payment. The applicant is released from all undertakings, and the periodical payments order is varied to £2,900 per month, indexed to the consumer prices index, on a joint lives basis.
Source excerpt
The application to set aside the consent order is dismissed because the underlying judicial review proceedings are now academic and moot; the claimant is no longer receiving provision under the order, and any claim for damages was settled and not properly pleaded. There is no benefit to the claimant in setting aside the order, and the appropriate forum for any remaining issues is the ongoing second judicial review.
Source excerpt
Explore more
