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 Upper Tribunal dismissed appeals against HMRC’s refusal to suspend penalties for careless inaccuracies in BADR claims, holding the refusal was not flawed.
The application for further information fails because the information sought is not about the Secretary of State’s grounds for contesting the claim nor necessary for determination of the challenge. The Defendant has complied with disclosure obligations under CPR 79.23, and DB/3 was not part of the decision-making process. Judicial review principles do not require disclosure beyond the express procedural rules.
Source excerpt
Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (On the Application Of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin) (31 July 2025)
The High Court held that SIAC had no jurisdiction to award costs under section 2D of the SIAC Act, including where the Secretary of State withdrew the decision.
The High Court held that SIAC had no jurisdiction to award costs in section 2D review proceedings, and no costs power arose when the decision was withdrawn.
High Court judgment on termination of a GMS contract, holding that the Integrated Care Board was entitled to terminate for failure to remediate breaches.
The UK Supreme Court held that SIAC reviews national security deprivation and entry-clearance decisions on public law grounds, not by substituting its own risk assessment.
West Dulwich Service Station Ltd on Behalf of West Dulwich Action Group v London Borough of Lambeth [2025] EWHC 1111 (Admin) (09 May 2025)
The High Court partly allowed a challenge to Lambeth’s experimental traffic orders for West Dulwich, finding the Council failed to consider a highly relevant 53-page presentation.
Ismailov v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 863 (Admin) (09 April 2025)
Interim sanctions-appeal application for further information was dismissed. The court held the request was not about the minister’s grounds and disclosure duties were met.
The Inspector and Secretary of State correctly interpreted and applied the Waste Plan spatial strategy and Policy 4, including the proximity principle. The reasoning was adequate and rational, and no material errors of fact or misapplication of policy occurred. The claim failed to meet the threshold for judicial intervention.
Source excerpt
SIAC upheld the exclusion of a Chinese national from the UK on national security grounds, rejecting challenges based on fairness, policy, discrimination, and equality duties.
Explore more
