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 Commercial Court refused a stay of proceedings brought on a non-exclusive English jurisdiction clause, despite parallel Liberian proceedings and a related arbitration.
Security for costs was ordered because the claimant is resident abroad, there is a real risk of non-enforcement of costs orders, the merits do not demonstrate a high probability of success, and there is insufficient evidence that the claim would be stifled by the order.
Source excerpt
Permission to serve out is set aside for most claims due to failure to meet the merits test, inadequate pleading, lack of evidence of acts within the UK, and material non-disclosure. However, permission is re-granted for (1) the NDA claim against Exxeta, (2) breach of equitable duties of confidence by the corporate Defendants, and (3) the Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star, as these claims meet the merits test and England is the appropriate forum for them. The Copying Case, most statutory IP claims, and claims against Mr Schmid fail the merits test. Material non-disclosure occurred but is r…
Source excerpt
The Commercial Court held that an asymmetric jurisdiction clause allowed the borrowers to sue in England and the lender to sue in other competent jurisdictions.
Spec 1 Ltd & Ors v The Export-Import Bank of China [2026] EWHC 1162 (Comm) (15 May 2026)
The Commercial Court construed an asymmetric jurisdiction clause in a ship finance agreement and refused both a stay and anti-suit relief, allowing the English claim to proceed.
Fox v Steve Fellows Road Haulage Services Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1054 (KB) (06 May 2026)
The High Court held that the claimant’s claim against the Spanish defendants had a real prospect of success and that England was the proper forum.
The High Court refused to set aside service on Spanish defendants after a Spain accident, and allowed the first defendant’s Part 20 contribution claim to be served out.
The English court has jurisdiction over Amazon's RAND and competition claims because, properly characterised, they relate to UK patents and markets; service under CPR r.63.14 and permission to serve out were valid; InterDigital's undertakings and arbitration offer do not provide a licence or certainty and do not remove the UK jurisdictional hook; no alternative forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate; and a forum non conveniens or case management stay is refused.
Source excerpt
The High Court ordered the urgent return of a one-year-old child from India to England and Wales, finding the father abducted the child and had perpetrated domestic abuse.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a husband’s challenge to findings that his wife retained an English domicile of choice and that England, not Italy, was the proper forum.
Explore more
