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 First-tier Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the Charity Commission’s 2024 Scheme for the Victoria Hall Trust, holding that it sufficiently protected the charity.
Summary judgment is granted to Samsung for sums due under the 001 Lease because the lease's set-off exclusion clause is clear and unambiguous, excluding all forms of set-off. Summary judgment is refused for the 002 Lease and counterclaims because there are arguable issues of fact and law regarding insurance claims, oral agreements, title, conversion, and restitution that require trial.
Source excerpt
SATA Internacional - Azores Airline SA v Hi Fly Ltd [2024] EWHC 2762 (Comm) (31 October 2024)
The High Court held that a lease novation transferred post-1 September 2019 arrears to AELF, but rectified the agreement to preserve Hi Fly’s entitlement.
The defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim as the sums due under the Settlement Agreement are fixed, the defendant has failed to pay any instalments or properly dispute the reconciliation, and there are no conditions precedent to payment. Summary judgment is appropriate.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal partly allowed a VAT appeal, holding there was a rent-free period, that VAT became due only on six months’ rent after lease termination, and allowing only some input tax claims.
The High Court refused to set aside a default judgment in a commercial aircraft leasing dispute, chiefly because the defendants acted too late and showed no strong defence.
Haydock Finance Ltd v Starcruiser Bussing Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 622 (Comm) (17 March 2021)
The High Court granted delivery up of a leased bus after rejecting securitisation and standing objections, but declined to enter money judgment at the hearing.
The High Court granted delivery up of a leased bus and rejected arguments that securitisation and trust arrangements defeated the claimant’s right to sue.
The Claimant made no clear and unambiguous representation limiting its right to rescind, and the Defendants have no realistic prospect of establishing estoppel by convention or equitable forbearance. The Notice was a valid exercise of the Claimant’s contractual right to rescind under Clause 6.3.2.
Source excerpt
The High Court found that Mr Park misrepresented the lease term and landlord consent, inducing Mr Choi to enter the agreement. The conspiracy claim against Ms Park failed.
Explore more
