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
Ms Kay had constructive knowledge of the facts necessary to bring a claim by 2009, or at the latest by 2018, and did not take all reasonable steps to obtain expert advice; impecuniosity did not excuse the delay. Therefore, the claim is statute-barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.
Source excerpt
Sculfor & Ors v MGN Ltd [2026] EWHC 597 (Ch) (16 March 2026)
Preliminary issue on limitation in phone-hacking claims against MGN. The court held Mr Sculfor’s claim was not time-barred, but held the defence succeeded against Ms Cantor, Mr Harkin, Ms Sacre-Dallerup and Mr Cox.
The Tribunal made a material perverse finding of fact regarding whether the claimant was a genuine applicant by incorrectly concluding the 2018 role was in a different team; otherwise, the Tribunal correctly applied the law regarding knowledge and reasonable enquiry, and its findings on the duty to make reasonable adjustments were not perverse.
Source excerpt
In Media Trust SpA v BGB Weston Ltd & OrsE [2024] EWHC 3277 (KB) (19 December 2024)
Appeal over amendment of pleadings and limitation under s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980. The High Court allowed the appeal on limitation grounds and refused amendment.
The tribunal did not err in finding that the respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the specific disadvantage ('restrictive mode') suffered by the claimant, and that the recruitment process, including videoconferencing, was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The appeal was dismissed as the requirements for reasonable adjustment and discrimination arising from disability were not met on the facts.
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed in a disability discrimination case about whether the employer knew, or should have known, the claimant’s disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The claim is statute-barred because Ms Kay had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged negligence by 2009, or at the latest by 2018, and there was no deliberate concealment by the defendant. The limitation period expired before the claim was issued in March 2023.
Source excerpt
The tribunal dismissed Beigebell’s VAT appeal, finding the company knew or should have known its transactions were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion.
The tribunal upheld HMRC’s denial of input tax relief and zero-rating, finding the appellant knew or should have known the vehicle trades were linked to VAT fraud.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed Northside Fleet Limited’s appeal, holding that the FTT correctly applied the Kittel test and that its conclusion was not perverse.
Explore more
