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
Permission for committal applications was granted in part for Mr Ali and in full for Mr Dhimi, refused for Mr Akayour; the judge recused himself from hearing the committal applications due to prior credibility findings on evidence relevant to contempt.
Source excerpt
Domestic & General Group Ltd & Ors v Premier Protect Holdings Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 2339 (KB) (26 June 2025)
The High Court granted some permission for committal applications, refused other parts, and recused the judge from hearing the committal applications.
Lea, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 879 (20 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal refused a renewed application to extend time and appeal conviction. It held the guilty plea was not induced by improper pressure and the judge acted fairly.
Ladybill Ltd v Sheffield Magistrates' Court [2025] EWHC 1169 (Admin) (15 May 2025)
The High Court held that apparent bias was established and quashed the refusal to recuse District Judge Spruce from the Ladybill rates case.
The seriousness of the allegations, while not trivial, is not sufficient to justify a further extension of the interim suspension order given the significant procedural delays by the GMC, the absence of urgent risk to patient safety, and the disproportionate impact on Dr Jain. The GMC failed to discharge the burden of proof that the criteria for extension were met. The application for extension is dismissed.
Source excerpt
General Medical Council v Jain [2025] EWHC 733 (Admin) (28 January 2025)
The High Court refused recusal and dismissed the GMC’s bid to extend Dr Jain’s interim suspension, finding the allegations and risk did not justify further delay.
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch) (19 December 2024)
The High Court found Dr Wright in contempt for breaching anti-suit and anti-threat injunctions by threatening and filing a new claim asserting prohibited Bitcoin-related rights.
The cumulative effect of the panel Chair's email, which disclosed pre-judgment on sanction, adverse credibility findings, and a closed mind to mitigation, would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias; therefore, the panel ought to have recused itself and the appeal must be allowed on this ground.
Source excerpt
On discontinuance, the court reduced the defendant’s costs by 20% for admitted collateral use of witness statements and failure to preserve evidence, and ordered ADR before assessment.
A Local Authority v AZ & Ors [2024] EWHC 1450 (Fam) (08 May 2024)
The High Court refused a local authority’s application for recusal in care proceedings, holding that the judge’s IRH comments were robust case management, not apparent bias.
Explore more
