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 judge correctly applied the good arguable case test to the question of domicile, was entitled to accept the respondent's uncontradicted evidence in the absence of cross-examination, and did not err in law or principle; therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Ferrara v Ferrara (Rev1) [2026] EWCA Civ 512 (29 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s appeal, upholding that the wife retained her English domicile of choice and that England remained the proper forum.
The High Court granted multiple parental orders in surrogacy cases, authorised non-expenses payments, extended time limits where needed, and held welfare is paramount.
A & B v C & D (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 972 (Fam) (14 April 2026)
Family Division judgment on parental orders in surrogacy cases, holding that welfare is paramount when authorising payments above reasonable expenses under section 54(8) HFEA 2008.
The High Court recognised a Nigerian adoption of a child in England and Wales, applying the common law Valentine criteria and finding no public policy bar.
The High Court annulled a bankruptcy order after finding no change of domicile to Austria, but held the order ought not to have been made as a matter of discretion.
Nilsson & Anor v Jones [2026] EWHC 319 (Ch) (17 February 2026)
The High Court rejected a challenge to an adjudicator-made bankruptcy order based on alleged Austrian domicile, but annulled the order on discretionary grounds.
Baig v Hassan [2026] EWHC 11 (KB) (05 January 2026)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over jurisdiction in a defamation claim, holding the judge applied the correct good arguable case test and made no error on evidence.
England is the natural forum for the parties' divorce proceedings as both parties are habitually resident and domiciled in England, the bulk of assets are in England, and the balance of fairness and convenience favours England. H failed to discharge the burden to show Egypt is clearly more appropriate. Application for stay is refused.
Source excerpt
The 1999 letter did not create a legitimate expectation as it only confirmed the claimant was treated as non-UK domiciled at that time, not for the future or past. The 2022 letter was not open to judicial review as all issues were resolved and the statutory remedy lay with the Tax Tribunal. The claim was therefore academic and totally without merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
