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
Appeal over credit hire damages dismissed. The court held the claimant was not debarred for non-disclosure and was entitled to rely on impecuniosity.
Russian Operator Policy Claims, In the Matter Of [2026] EWHC 542 (Comm) (26 February 2026)
The High Court ordered security for costs against the Deep Sky Claimants, rejecting their argument that the order would stifle the claim.
The Senior Courts Costs Office dismissed the Defendants’ application to discharge an unless order, refusing relief from sanctions and leaving an interim payment order in place.
Fieldfisher LLP v Scherbakova & Anor [2026] EWHC 104 (SCCO) (20 January 2026)
The High Court refused to discharge an unless order or grant relief from sanctions in a solicitor-fees dispute, finding no material change and no proved impecuniosity.
Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston [2025] EWHC 3178 (KB) (02 December 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal about credit hire and storage damages, holding that the trial judge was entitled to find the hire period and storage reasonable.
Dowding v The Character Group PLC [2025] EWHC 1755 (KB) (11 July 2025)
The High Court granted an unless order after unpaid costs orders, stayed amendment, and refused adjournment and fraud-based relief.
Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 733 (13 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that credit hire companies can face non-party costs orders where failed RTA claims were brought for their financial benefit under QOCS.
Craft Development SCI v Actis LLP & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1355 (KB) (04 June 2025)
The High Court ordered Craft Development SCI to give ÂŁ300,000 security for costs, finding the claimant had not fully proved that security would stifle the claim.
Craft failed to fully discharge the burden of proving that an order for security would stifle the claim due to gaps in evidence regarding funding sources and future litigation costs. However, the court found that the full amount sought by Actis would stifle the claim, so security was set at ÂŁ300,000 as the maximum Craft could realistically raise without making compliance impossible.
Source excerpt
The claimant was entitled to recover credit hire charges for 21 days at the credit hire rate, as she was impecunious and acted reasonably based on information provided; defendant failed to prove failure to mitigate loss.
Source excerpt
Explore more
