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 High Court struck out Stema UK’s attempt to advance an Article 1(4) limitation defence, holding it was barred by finality and abuse of process.
The rule in Henderson v Henderson does not apply absent a prior substantive determination; no abuse of process occurred as the malicious prosecution claim was always known to the respondents, was within limitation, and the conduct did not meet the threshold for oppression or deception. The appeal is allowed and the claim reinstated.
Source excerpt
HMRC was not required to plead dishonesty in the earlier CCA appeal, and its reliance on dishonesty in this appeal is not an abuse of process. The tribunal found, based on the findings in the 2020 Decision and its own assessment, that Mr Trees’ conduct was dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
High Court appeal on whether a settlement of proceedings also compromised an assigned loan debt, and whether a statutory demand was abusive. The appeal was dismissed.
The court dismissed an application to strike out and for summary judgment in a defamation and harassment claim, but struck out specific pleaded passages and required amendment.
The court refused late amendments to add smoke ventilation and roof defect claims, holding they were poorly explained, lacked particularity, and would derail the trial timetable.
AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd [2015] EWHC 1371 (IPEC) (15 May 2015)
Strike-out application in a patent dispute dismissed. The court held AP Racing’s fresh claim over seven calipers was not an abuse of process.
The court held that AP Racing’s second patent action was not an abuse of process and refused to strike out claims relating to seven calipers.
The High Court allowed Ruttle to re-amend its pleadings after a preliminary issues judgment, holding that Henderson v Henderson did not bar amendments in the same action.
Dexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy [2003] EWCA Civ 14 (24 January 2003)
The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to strike out Dexter’s claims as an abuse of process, applying Johnson v Gore Wood & Co and stressing the broad merits-based test.
Explore more
