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
Birmingham City Council v Unite the Union [2026] EWHC 633 (KB) (17 March 2026)
The High Court fined Unite the Union £265,000 for contempt after finding repeated breaches of an injunction during Birmingham's waste strike were deliberate, not a genuine misunderstanding.
The High Court fined Unite the Union £265,000 for contempt after admitted breaches of an injunction regulating picketing and protests during a Birmingham refuse dispute.
BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Unite the Union [2025] EWHC 3106 (KB) (25 November 2025)
The High Court dismissed BAE’s application for an interim injunction against Unite, finding Unite was likely to succeed in showing no prior call or inducement of breach.
The High Court refused BAE Systems’ application for an interim injunction against Unite, holding there was no likely unlawful prior call before the ballot.
Sheffield Environmental Services & Ors v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2141 (KB) (13 August 2025)
The High Court granted an injunction against persons unknown blocking Veolia’s Sheffield sites during industrial action, finding private nuisance, minimal trespass, and adequate service.
Morais & Ors v Ryanair DAC [2025] EWCA Civ 19 (17 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that the Blacklisting Regulations cover participation in official industrial action and do not require Part V compliance. Ryanair’s relitigation attempt was an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal held that the Blacklisting Regulations can cover official industrial action and dismissed Ryanair’s appeal.
The ongoing industrial action by Unite the Union is most likely to be found at trial to be in furtherance of the trade dispute identified in the ballot, namely the 2023/24 pay deal and related terms, and thus protected by statutory immunity under section 219(1) TULR(C)A 1992. The fact that negotiations focused on localised or creative solutions does not alter the essential character of the dispute. The balance of convenience does not justify the grant of an injunction in this case.
Source excerpt
The Secretary of State failed to comply with the statutory duty to consult under section 12(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 before making the 2022 Regulations. The 2015 consultation was too remote in time, responses were not conscientiously considered by the decision-maker, and significant changes in law and circumstances had occurred. The failure to consult was so unfair as to be unlawful and frustrated the statutory purpose. Relief was not refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 because it was not highly likely the outcome would have been substantially the same.
Source excerpt
The court ordered a stay of proceedings for 8 months to encourage the parties to engage in ADR, including but not limited to the OIA scheme, due to the high costs and complexity of group litigation, the existence of a statutory ADR scheme, and the need for proportionate resolution. The GLO application was adjourned pending the outcome of ADR. The court did not compel ADR but made clear that costs sanctions may follow if parties fail to engage constructively. The court found that while the OIA scheme may not resolve all legal issues, it could resolve or narrow a significant number of claims, a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
