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
Durnont Enterprises v Fazita Investment Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1224 (Ch) (18 May 2026)
Consequentials hearing in a derivative claim: indemnity costs, joint and several liability, interim payment, security for costs, and permission to appeal.
The claims are summarily dismissed as they are time-barred under Qatari law, the claimant lacks standing to sue for losses belonging to Ettizan or KRIC, no viable cause of action is pleaded, and there is no cogent evidence that Qatar is unavailable or would not deliver justice. The evidence of Qatari law relied upon by the claimant is unreliable and cannot be given weight.
Source excerpt
Kaur v Kaur & Ors (Re the Estate of Raj Kaur) [2025] EWHC 2806 (Ch) (03 November 2025)
The court addressed whether advances from a mother to one daughter were loans or gifts, as well as claims over jewellery, rent, and a family heads of agreement.
Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor v ABH Ukraine Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 2292 (Comm) (05 September 2025)
The Commercial Court set aside service and the claim form against two defendants for want of jurisdiction, refusing to let a late amendment defeat the challenge.
The claimants failed to establish a good arguable case that their claims against the first and second defendants fell within the jurisdictional gateway of CPR Part 6.33(2B), as neither defendant was party to a contract with the claimants containing an English jurisdiction clause. The amendment application was not sufficiently compelling to override procedural concerns and the requirement for security. Consequently, service and the claim form were set aside as against the first and second defendants, and the court declared it had no jurisdiction over them.
Source excerpt
Al Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC & Anor [2025] EWHC 1588 (Comm) (26 June 2025)
Commercial Court dismissed Mr Al Haroun’s claims as time-barred, unsupported by admissible expert evidence, and lacking a viable basis or standing.
Glenn & Anor v Walker & Ors (Re Fifty Asset Management Ltd) [2025] EWHC 1286 (Ch) (23 May 2025)
The High Court found no overarching partnership or joint venture, rejecting claims for fiduciary breach, unlawful means conspiracy, and derivative relief.
Humphrey & Anor v Bennett & Ors [2025] EWHC 448 (Ch) (28 February 2025)
The High Court refused to strike out a derivative knowing receipt claim and allowed amendments adding unjust enrichment, dishonest assistance, conspiracy, and Companies Act claims.
The court partly allowed a claimant’s application to re-re-amend property and company law pleadings, but refused contradictory, proprietary estoppel, and fiduciary compensation amendments.
The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the Bank, Mr Czeremcha, or Mr de Makay breached the SSA, Articles, fiduciary duties, or incurred liability under Article 415 of the Polish Civil Code. There was insufficient evidence of breach, causation of loss, or involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. The appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
