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 Privy Council held that an unlicensed Cayman moneylender’s loan was still enforceable, and it dismissed a procedural challenge about leave to appeal.
Nationwide Property Developments Ltd v Egbunike (Option agreement - option granted as part of an agreement for respondent to sell applicant's property at a reserve price whilst providing an immediate substantial advance - advance not forthcoming - monetary figures not inserted - whether or not the option is still on foot) [2025] UKFTT 1454 (PC) (17 November 2025)
The tribunal held that the option agreement had fallen away after the applicant failed to provide the promised advance, so no restriction or notice could protect it.
The tribunal held that a property option failed after the applicant did not advance the promised funds, so the option could not be protected by notice or restriction.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Ltd & Anor v Alex Neill Class Representative Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 841 (24 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that amended litigation funding agreements in collective proceedings were not damages-based agreements, and dismissed the defendants’ appeals.
The agreement was unenforceable because it failed to specify the true reason for the success fee as required by regulation 3(c) of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, and because it related to family proceedings, contrary to s58AA(4)(aa) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Even if enforceable, the claimant did not play a sufficiently significant role in obtaining the compensation to be entitled to the success fee.
Source excerpt
Stoop (t/a Warwick Risk Management) v Johnson [2024] EWHC 286 (Ch) (23 February 2024)
The High Court held a damages-based agreement unenforceable because it failed to state the true reason for a 50% success fee and also related to family proceedings.
HDR Global Trading Ltd v Shulev & Anor [2022] EWHC 1685 (Comm) (01 July 2022)
The High Court held that a settlement agreement in a cryptoasset dispute was binding, clause 3 was enforceable, and Mr Shulev had not yet earned the first instalment.
High Court commercial trial over an introducer’s fee, tail period variation, quantum meruit, and FSMA illegality. Both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed.
The High Court held that a DBA clause requiring a client to pay costs and expenses on early termination did not make the agreement unenforceable.
Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi [2020] EWHC 1855 (Ch) (10 July 2020)
The High Court held that a DBA clause requiring costs and expenses on termination did not make the agreement unenforceable under the 2013 Regulations.
Explore more
