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 Upper Tribunal refused reconsideration of permission to appeal in a tax dispute, holding there was no arguable error in the FTT’s treatment of an HMRC barring application.
A further LSPO is granted in favour of the wife, encompassing a portion of historic costs and future costs, as the wife would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services without such funding, and the husband can afford to pay. The LSPO is structured to ensure equality of arms, with payments in instalments and restrictions on the husband's use of funds raised.
Source excerpt
DR v ES and Ors (Further LSPO Application) [2026] EWFC 15 (30 January 2026)
The Family Court granted a further LSPO to fund the wife’s ongoing financial remedy case, including part of her historic costs and future costs to final hearing.
Bank of India v Firestar Diamond FZE & Ors [2025] EWHC 466 (Comm) (27 February 2025)
The court adjourned a stay application by Nirav Modi to the PTR, but ordered inspection of original contractual documents for forensic review.
A (A Child) (Abduction: Adjournment Following Refusal of Legal Aid) [2025] EWHC 484 (Fam) (27 February 2025)
The High Court adjourned a Hague Convention child abduction hearing after the mother lost legal aid at the last minute and could not fairly present her case in person.
Although the High Court was correct that the judge's reasons for refusing recusal were inadequate, the underlying complaints of unfairness and bias were unfounded. The judge's case management decisions were justified and did not place the father at a substantial disadvantage. There was no real possibility that the father would not receive a fair trial. The order transferring the case to a new judge was set aside.
Source excerpt
The lower court erred in dismissing the applicant's request for a legal services funding order by failing to give sufficient weight to the guidance in Rubin v Rubin regarding the reasonableness of the applicant's efforts to secure funding and by not adequately considering the availability of the PP loan repayment as a resource. The applicant had met the evidential burden to show he could not reasonably obtain funding elsewhere, and the respondent's receipt of the loan repayment constituted a resource from which a contribution to the applicant's legal costs should have been ordered.
Source excerpt
The judge had sufficient, unanimous, and comprehensive medical evidence to determine Indi's best interests and the necessity of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Further expert evidence was not necessary, and the trial complied with procedural fairness and human rights requirements.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal allowed OO’s appeal, holding that refusal to adjourn after a late change in expert evidence caused procedural unfairness and an error of law.
A Hadkinson order can be made in Children Act proceedings only if, in addition to the five established requirements, the order accords with the welfare of the children. The judge below failed to directly consider the welfare of the children as paramount, which is a necessary requirement. The order made was disproportionate. A more limited Hadkinson order, requiring payment of £30,000 to enable the Mother’s representation at the final hearing, is proportionate and in the children’s welfare.
Source excerpt
Explore more
