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 High Court refused the Charity Commission’s judicial review challenge to an Ombudsman decision, holding the claim academic and, in any event, unarguable.
The statutory scheme and guidance require that FEEE hours be available to parents free of charge, with any additional charges being voluntary. The Council acted unlawfully in permitting mandatory charges for FEEE hours, and the Ombudsman was correct in finding maladministration. The Ombudsman’s failure to consider the alternative remedy bar was a legal error but made no difference to the outcome. The Ombudsman’s recommendations and approach were lawful, and any inconsistency with other decisions did not render this decision unlawful.
Source excerpt
The Defendant's decisions were not irrational; there was no evidence of maladministration by the HSE, and Mrs Wills' claim was out of time and lacked merit. The Defendant was entitled to refuse a review and to rely on the HSE's technical assessments. Permission for judicial review is refused both on the merits and due to undue delay.
Source excerpt
Wills, R (On the Application Of) v The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2025] EWHC 1516 (Admin) (19 June 2025)
Permission for judicial review was refused in a challenge to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s handling of a complaint about the HSE’s investigation.
Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch Council, R (On the Application Of) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2025] EWHC 224 (Admin) (07 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch Council’s judicial review of an Ombudsman report concerning mandatory nursery charges for FEEE hours.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider complaints about HMCE/HMRC conduct; only appealable decisions can be considered. The appellant's attempt to appeal the 1985 Schedule 4 Direction is decades out of time, with no reasonable excuse for the delay. The matter has already been litigated and is barred by res judicata. The application for a late appeal is refused and the appeal is struck out.
Source excerpt
High Court appeal on a LGPS survivor pension: the judge held the wrong financial-dependency test had been applied and remitted the claim for reconsideration.
Thomas v Southwark Council [2024] EWHC 2739 (Ch) (31 October 2024)
High Court appeal from a Pensions Ombudsman determination concerning a LGPS cohabiting partner’s pension. The court held the test was misapplied and remitted the matter.
The Ombudsman had no express or implied statutory power to withdraw decision 1 after completing the investigation; decision 1 was unlawful as it was made without jurisdiction due to the existence of an alternative remedy in court; decision 3 was lawful as the Ombudsman correctly declined jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The scope of 'appropriate redress' under s.340C Armed Forces Act 2006 includes, in principle, compensation for post-resignation losses, but only where such losses are within the delegated authority of the decision-maker and are appropriate on the facts. The AB was entitled to refuse quantifiable compensation for post-resignation losses where it found, on the evidence, that the Claimants had not suffered significant or irretrievable career damage and that it was not reasonable for them to believe they had no choice but to resign. The AB's approach was rational, consistent with statute and poli…
Source excerpt
Explore more
