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
Affleck v The Royal Borough of Windsor And Maidenhead [2026] EWHC 1137 (Admin) (15 May 2026)
The High Court granted permission for judicial review over a council’s refusal to let a claimant ask an oral supplementary question, extending time and finding an arguable Article 10 issue.
The High Court extended time and granted permission for judicial review over a council's refusal to let a resident ask an oral supplementary question.
The High Court dismissed barrister John Stenhouse’s appeal against BSB disciplinary findings for sending emails alleging secret collusion and a cover-up.
The Court of Appeal held that the judge applied the wrong section 12(3) threshold for an interim injunction restraining alleged unjustified threats and set the injunction aside.
Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 532 (08 May 2026)
The Court of Appeal allowed BBL’s appeal and set aside an interim injunction restraining threats of trade mark infringement proceedings, holding section 12(3) required the usual likelihood threshold.
Thorne & Anor v Protheroe-Beynon [2026] EWHC 1042 (KB) (06 May 2026)
The defendant's conduct, including repeated threatening communications and public allegations of professional misconduct, is more likely than not to be found to amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The threshold test for interim injunctive relief under s12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 is satisfied. The balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages favour continuation of the injunction. The defendant's ECHR Article 10 rights do not outweigh the claimants' rights to be free from harassment. Statements made in inter partes correspondence are immune from suit unless…
Source excerpt
EF v The London Borough of Hackney & Anor [2026] EWCOP 20 (T3) (05 May 2026)
Appeal dismissed against refusal to discharge a Court of Protection Transparency Order preserving anonymity and reporting restrictions in P’s welfare proceedings.
Permission to appeal was refused as the grounds did not meet the threshold of real prospect of success or compelling reason. A reporting restriction order was granted only in respect of specific findings in the judgment that posed a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in pending criminal proceedings, but not for the entire judgment, balancing open justice against the risk of prejudice.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed anonymised reporting and disclosure in family proceedings involving a child, subject to strict restrictions and redactions, including safeguards for national security.
CX (A child), Re (Reporting restrictions order: National security) [2026] EWHC 994 (Fam) (29 April 2026)
The High Court allowed anonymised reporting and disclosure of documents from concluded child welfare proceedings, subject to redactions and reporting restrictions protecting privacy and national security.
Explore more
