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
Prasad v Hanif [2021] EWHC 598 (Ch) (16 March 2021)
Partnership dispute between two GP partners over indemnity for employee claims, property interests, account adjustments, and alleged unauthorised expenses.
Ukegheson v Gresham Insurance Company Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2903 (Comm) (09 November 2020)
Summary judgment in a legal expenses insurance dispute. Most of the claimant’s contract, fraud, and distress claims failed; only EAT appeal costs remained for assessment.
PM Law Ltd & Motorplus Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 193 (QB) (05 February 2016)
The High Court struck out PM Law’s policy-based claims and granted summary judgment for Motorplus, holding PM Law had no title to sue under the policies.
PM Law Ltd & Motorplus Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 193 (QB) (05 February 2016)
The High Court struck out PM Law’s pleaded claims for insurance payment rights and granted Motorplus summary judgment, holding PM Law had no title to sue under the policies.
Brown- Quinn & Anor v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 1633 (12 December 2012)
Court of Appeal held legal expenses insurers could limit cover to non-panel rates, but had to respect the insured's freedom to choose a lawyer.
The Court of Appeal held that legal expenses insurance could limit recovery to non-panel rates, but only if the restriction did not make the insured’s choice of lawyer meaningless.
Brown -Quinn & Anor v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm) (21 October 2011)
The court held that insureds under BTE legal expenses policies could choose their own solicitor, with costs assessed for reasonableness under CPR 48.3.
Commercial Court decision on BTE legal expenses insurance, holding that insureds may choose their own solicitors and costs are assessed under CPR 48.3.
Pine v Das Legal Expenses Insurance Company Ltd [2011] EWHC 658 (QB) (25 March 2011)
The High Court held that the claimant could choose a public access barrister under her legal expenses policy, and that no exceptional circumstances justified the insurer's refusal.
Pine v Das Legal Expenses Insurance Company Ltd [2011] EWHC 658 (QB) (25 March 2011)
The High Court held that DAS had to indemnify Miss Pine for reasonable and necessary fees of a barrister instructed on a public access basis, and refused general damages.
Explore more
