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
Atuanya v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 758 (KB) (30 March 2026)
The High Court held that the claimant’s discontinued NFCI claim was fundamentally dishonest because he exaggerated symptoms and limitations, losing QOCS protection.
The Recorder erred in law by requiring a contested preliminary hearing to determine litigation capacity before appointing a substitute litigation friend, contrary to the guidance in Folks v Faizey. The correct approach was to appoint a litigation friend on the OPE basis unless the defendant would be prejudiced, which was not the case here. The Recorder’s decision to hold a capacity hearing was unnecessary, procedurally wrong, and increased costs. The refusal to transfer the case to the High Court was a case management decision within the Recorder’s discretion and not plainly wrong.
Source excerpt
The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to install a dampener or otherwise modify the fridge lid to mitigate a clear and foreseeable risk of serious injury, despite the ubiquity of the design and the presence of warning signs. Warning signs and safety induction were inadequate control mechanisms. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to operate the fridge correctly, warranting a 30% reduction in damages.
Source excerpt
The High Court refused to hear an informal disclosure request and required a formal application notice with evidence. It then revised costs budgets across the case phases.
Mehmood v Mayor [2025] EWHC 3029 (KB) (24 November 2025)
The High Court refused to deal with a disclosure request informally and required a formal application with evidence. It also approved phased costs budgets on a proportional basis.
Clinical negligence claim over a second stroke and refusal of thrombolysis was dismissed. The court also rejected the defendants’ allegation of fundamental dishonesty.
Costs Judge Nagalingam refused permission to appeal a detailed assessment judgment, holding there was no real prospect of success or other compelling reason.
XX & Anor v Young & Anor [2025] EWHC 2443 (SCCO) (24 September 2025)
The Senior Courts Costs Office refused permission to appeal against a detailed assessment judgment, holding there was no real prospect of success and no compelling reason to hear the appeal.
The surveillance evidence, despite procedural flaws and negligent editing, was not deliberately manipulated to prejudice the Claimant and retains probative value. The errors do not reach the threshold for exclusion under CPR 32.1. All unedited footage must be disclosed, and a new compilation agreed. The Claimant is not entitled to inspection of the Defendant's neuropsychologist's draft report, as privilege was not waived and CPR 35.10(3) was complied with; no reasonable grounds exist to consider the statement of instructions inaccurate or incomplete.
Source excerpt
O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB) (09 September 2025)
The High Court dismissed a soldier's claim over a riding accident, rejecting negligence and Animals Act liability, and found the claim fundamentally dishonest.
Explore more
