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.
The High Court set aside permission to serve a pre-action disclosure application on Ferrari in Italy, holding section 33 SCA did not extend to foreign-held documents.
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 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.
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 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.
A (A Child), Re (Habitual Residence) [2026] EWHC 1140 (Fam) (28 April 2026)
The High Court held that A was habitually resident in India on the application date, so it lacked jurisdiction over the wardship and summary return application.
Explore more
