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
GMC Utilities Group Ltd v Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd [2026] EWHC 885 (TCC) (16 April 2026)
The High Court held that the 8 November 2024 correspondence created a binding agreement about escrow and bond release, and stayed the Part 7 claim to arbitration.
An interim injunction cannot restrain a bank from paying out under a performance bond absent fraud; the demand complied with the bond's requirements; the bond was not discharged by repudiatory breach; set-off rights do not entitle the applicant to an injunction; balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favour refusal.
Source excerpt
CR Construction (UK) Company Ltd v Barclays Bank PLC [2026] EWHC 202 (TCC) (04 February 2026)
Interim injunction refused in a performance bond dispute. The court held there was no fraud alleged against the bank, the demand was compliant, and the balance favoured payment.
The High Court enforced an adjudicator’s decision on a construction payment dispute, rejecting arguments that new rates and a remeasurement breached natural justice or lacked reasons.
The Commercial Court held that the JOLCO termination clauses were not penalties, granted FWA a declaration of possession, and enforced post-sale rental under Clause 20.4(c).
The Joint Report did not constitute a binding agreement by Sonara to pay the disputed claims for incremental interest, excess/penal charges, or FX losses; it was, at most, an agreement to negotiate. The disputed claims are not recoverable under Clause 26, which does not override the contractual scheme or limitation, and are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. Clause 8 is not an exhaustive liquidated damages provision, but Clause 18 limits recovery to losses arising naturally from breach, which does not include FX losses in this context. Sonara's counterclaim fails because the parties a…
Source excerpt
The High Court held that URE validly terminated an electricity supply contract after Genesis’s amalgamation, and awarded the contractual termination payment.
URE Energy Ltd v Notting Hill Genesis [2024] EWHC 2537 (Comm) (14 October 2024)
The High Court held that URE had not waived its right to terminate after NHG's amalgamation, and that NHG's access failures were material breaches.
The Grove principle does not prohibit all adjudications prior to payment of a notified sum, but only those seeking to re-value matters that could have been raised in a payless notice for the relevant payment cycle. Adjudication no 2 was largely for post-completion defects, but to the extent of £260,899.61 overlapped with matters in PAY-7, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction for that sum. Lidl is entitled to summary judgment for the balance. In adjudication no 3, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to determine extension of time for the period 18 June 2022 to 29 September 2022, as this overlap…
Source excerpt
Astra fulfilled its contractual obligation to use best efforts to arrange a facility satisfactory to itself as Arranger. Odin chose not to close the transaction for its own reasons, triggering the break fee under clause 5.1. The indemnity under clause 8.1 was payable on demand without the need for further particulars. The defences of undue pressure, unreasonable terms, and penalty were fanciful and had no real prospect of success.
Source excerpt
Explore more
