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
Secretary of State for the Home Department v KIB [2026] EWHC 1000 (Admin) (29 April 2026)
The High Court refused permission to cross-examine a Home Office witness on a TPIM candour issue, holding that contemporaneous documents were enough to decide it.
The High Court refused permission to cross-examine a Home Office witness on alleged candour breaches in TPIM proceedings, holding oral evidence was unnecessary.
The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for perverting the course of public justice, finding the judge’s interventions in cross-examination were proper and fair.
MR (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 473 (16 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an immigration appeal, holding the tribunal erred by treating lack of cross-examination as tacit acceptance and by not assessing the evidence as a whole.
The Court of Appeal dismissed MR’s appeal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal erred by treating no cross-examination as a concession and by failing to assess the evidence as a whole.
Frischmann v Vaxeal Holdings SA & Ors [2026] EWHC 694 (Ch) (24 March 2026)
The High Court refused a judgment debtor’s request for a transcript at public expense, finding he had not shown lack of means or necessity under CPR 52.14.
Permitting Mr Burrows to give evidence remotely via video-link, subject to stringent safeguards and judicial oversight, is proportionate and fair, best serving the interests of justice, as comity concerns do not preclude voluntary remote evidence where foreign law does not prohibit it and the witness is not compellable.
Source excerpt
Optosafe Ltd & Anor v Robertson [2025] EWHC 2733 (KB) (22 October 2025)
Pre-trial ruling on cross-examination, evidence and relief from sanction in a harassment and contract claim. The court refused automatic cross-examination prohibition and struck out irrelevant evidence.
Father’s application to set aside under r.27.5 FPR10 fails because no judgment or order was made against him in his absence; reopening the fact-finding hearing is not applicable as no findings have been made; fairness and justice require father and his mother be permitted to give oral evidence, but recalling mother or officer is unnecessary and disproportionate given their vulnerabilities and potential harm.
Source excerpt
Mold Investments Ltd v Holloway [2025] EWCA Civ 986 (29 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that a stand-alone hearing to set aside a freezing order was wrong where the fraud allegations substantially overlapped with the trial issues.
Explore more
