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
Messrs Burnham Law failed to act with the competence reasonably expected of solicitors by not preparing for trial, instructing counsel, or complying with court directions, directly causing wasted costs to the father. The court exercised its discretion to order Burnham Law to pay the father's wasted costs, including counsel fees and travel expenses.
Source excerpt
The Senior Courts Costs Office allowed an appeal in principle, holding that 33 hours of pre-variation work could be remunerated at junior rates under an ambiguous representation order.
Davies v Lettington [2026] EWCA Civ 364 (27 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in a civil committal case, holding that the judge wrongly refused an adjournment to let the appellant obtain legal representation.
Briggs, R. v [2026] EWHC 459 (SCCO) (27 February 2026)
The Senior Courts Costs Office allowed an appeal over AGFS unused-material remuneration, holding trial transcripts counted as unused material and were payable.
EB, R (On the Application Of) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2026] EWHC 402 (Admin) (25 February 2026)
The High Court quashed a refusal of exceptional case funding for a woman seeking legal help to apply for supervised psilocybin treatment for anorexia.
Judicial review of a refusal of exceptional case funding for advice on a psilocybin application was quashed after the court found factual and legal errors.
The mother's application for establishment of a maintenance decision was validly instituted before the end of the transition period and remained governed by the Maintenance Regulation; the judge erred in concluding there was no jurisdiction and in dismissing the application for alleged non-compliance with case management orders, as the mother had substantially complied and dismissal was disproportionate.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because, at the time of the refusal of legal aid, there was no dispute between the appellant and the Director regarding a civil right, so Article 6 ECHR was not engaged. The refusal to make an exceptional case determination was therefore lawful. The Court further held, obiter, that rights under the Windrush Compensation Scheme are capable of being civil rights for Article 6 purposes if a genuine dispute arises, but that was not the case here.
Source excerpt
The Costs Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal regarding a litigator's claim for travel expenses as a disbursement under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, as such claims are not included in the categories of claim subject to appeal under Regulations 28 and 29.
Source excerpt
The High Court quashed a closure order after holding that the magistrates’ refusal to adjourn the hearing was procedurally unfair and irrational.
Explore more
