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 applicant's conviction was not unsafe because he received appropriate accommodations for his ADHD, the trial judge properly directed the jury, and the evidence against him was clear and compelling. There was no failure by his legal representatives that rendered the trial unfair.
Source excerpt
Ahmad, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 156 (30 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division refused leave to appeal against an affray conviction, holding that ADHD-related participation issues had been adequately accommodated at trial.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal struck out two appeals after prolonged delay, non-compliance with directions, and no current medical evidence to justify further adjustments.
The defendant was properly served, knew and understood the requirements of the freezing orders, had the ability to comply, deliberately failed to comply, and provided no acceptable explanation; contempt is established.
Source excerpt
The EAT refused an extension of time for a late appeal, holding that brief delay caused by disorganisation did not outweigh significant prejudice to the respondent.
The tribunal dismissed Mr Morris’s appeal against refusal to renew his dog breeding licence, finding breaches of vaccination, record-keeping, bleaching, and healthcare-plan conditions.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Hood’s appeal against a costs order, holding that he unreasonably refused a settlement offer and the FTT costs decision stood.
Khan v David [2025] EWHC 3041 (KB) (16 October 2025)
The High Court found the defendant in contempt for deliberately failing to comply with freezing orders requiring asset disclosure and an affidavit, and adjourned the matter for committal.
The judge erred by overlaying the necessity test with concepts of rarity and failing to properly consider the mother's vulnerabilities and the evidence, resulting in procedural unfairness. The necessity test under Part 3A FPR required intermediary assistance for the mother to ensure a fair hearing.
Source excerpt
The EAT allowed a claimant’s appeal against refusal to postpone a 10-day merits hearing, finding the tribunal failed to consider her self-representation and further medical evidence.
Explore more
