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 court found Matière breached good faith duties in a joint venture dispute, but ABM failed to prove those breaches caused its lost subcontract chance.
Ellis & Ors v John Benson Ltd [2025] EWHC 2096 (KB) (06 August 2025)
The High Court held that implied duties of good faith applied to franchise agreements, found JBL in repudiatory breach, and upheld the claimants’ terminations.
Costs and interest ruling after trial in a contract dispute: the claimant’s Part 36 offer was effective for the claim but not the counterclaim.
Matiere SAS v ABM Precast Solutions Ltd [2025] EWHC 2030 (TCC) (31 July 2025)
The court held that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was genuine for the claim but not the counterclaim, so enhanced costs and interest applied only to the claim.
The University of Sheffield v KuDOS Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2025] EWHC 1243 (Ch) (23 April 2025)
Master Marsh granted permission to amend the defence and gave disclosure directions in a patent-licence misrepresentation claim about the Merck collaboration.
The court held that Bank of Scotland did not breach any express or implied duty of good faith under the shareholders agreement or facility agreements. The bank's discretion to permit asset disposals was not absolute but was subject only to a limited Braganza-type implied term, requiring the bank not to act irrationally or for purposes unrelated to its commercial interests. The bank's refusal to accept alternative refinancing proposals, including the Barclays refinancing, was rational and commercially justified. The deed of waiver barred the Randolph Hotel claim. The Marine Hotel claim was not…
Source excerpt
Macdonald Hotels Ltd & Anor v Bank of Scotland PLC (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 32 (Comm) (24 January 2025)
Commercial Court judgment on alleged forced hotel disposals and good faith duties under a shareholders agreement and facility agreements; the claims were dismissed.
The court found that there was no binding settlement agreement extinguishing Mr Hoole's rights; MCL breached the Hoole/MCL Contract by failing to pay commission. The other defendants, including Mr Bold and Mr Bryce, conspired and procured the breach for personal gain and to avoid regulatory scrutiny, using unlawful means including fake documents. There was no lawful termination for repudiatory breach. The principle in Said v Butt did not protect Mr Bold due to his bad faith and self-enrichment. All defendants except Mr Gabriel (who settled) are jointly and severally liable for Mr Hoole's loss…
Source excerpt
Clause 8.5 of the Services Agreement obliges LLP to provide Quad with access to information in its possession relating to defined Clients and Services, including information held by employees in their memories, but does not require LLP to provide information merely available but not possessed, to create new documents, to cooperate in tendering, or to provide premises, personnel, or remote access unless expressly stipulated. The obligation does not extend to information outside the defined scope, and no implied term of good faith expands these obligations.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate any bona fide substantial grounds for disputing the petition debt or any genuine arguable cross-claim of substance equalling or exceeding the petition debt. The promissory note was not subject to an implied duty of good faith, and the applicant's allegations were unparticularised, unsupported, and did not meet the legal threshold required to restrain or strike out the petition.
Source excerpt
Explore more
