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 held that attempts to dissolve companies to defeat a tribunal claim could amount to unreasonable conduct of proceedings under rule 76(1)(a).
The claimant is the successful party and entitled to its costs on the standard basis; the defendant's conduct was not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs. The final injunction should require delivery up of emails, with the defendant to explain in affidavit if unable to comply.
Source excerpt
The conviction is safe because the trial judge’s directions on knowledge and dishonesty were legally accurate, the relevance of religious belief was sufficiently clear, and the correction of defence counsel’s error regarding prior investigations was properly managed without unfair prejudice. The costs order was justified as the appellant failed to make full and credible disclosure of means, and the judge was entitled to conclude he could pay the amount ordered.
Source excerpt
The claim for judicial review was not arguable as the claimant accepted the breach in court, was represented by counsel, and had the opportunity to raise legal points but did not do so. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR. The application was also fatally delayed, and there was no ground for extension of time.
Source excerpt
The respondent failed to raise a cross-claim that is genuine, substantial, or properly particularised. The costs order is valid and enforceable. The petitioner's claim is not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, and the respondent's alleged cross-claim is no more than a bare assertion unsupported by evidence. The petition succeeds.
Source excerpt
The statutory demand was set aside because the Kings had a substantial cross demand in the form of the Professional Negligence Proceedings against the BMIF-insured barristers, and BMIF was found to be the real defendant for the purposes of mutuality. The debt was a liquidated sum, and there was no abuse of process or improper purpose established.
Source excerpt
There was no compliance, partial or otherwise, with the unless order; the failure was deliberate, serious, and prejudicial to the respondent. The reconsideration application did not provide new information or grounds. The Tribunal correctly refused relief from sanctions and reconsideration of the costs order. The appeal was, in substance, an attempt to challenge the original judgment, not the reconsideration decision.
Source excerpt
Gap Group North East Ltd v Palmer (Re Supplementary Judgment) [2023] EWHC 3251 (KB) (20 December 2023)
The High Court addressed the form of a final injunction and costs, requiring email delivery up or explanation and ordering standard-basis costs with a ÂŁ50,000 interim payment.
Wiseman v Rex [2023] EWCA Crim 1363 (29 November 2023)
The Court of Appeal upheld a fraud conviction over coronavirus “healing” oil claims and refused leave to challenge a costs order of £60,072.50.
Morrison Water Services Ltd v Browning [2023] EWHC 2725 (Ch) (31 October 2023)
The High Court restrained a former employee from presenting a winding-up petition because his bonus, expenses and tax claims were disputed on substantial grounds.
Explore more
