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 Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals against SWLICB decisions under DPA 2018 or FOIA; no relevant notice was issued by the Information Commissioner; the appeal was filed 513 days late without good reason; Rule 8(2)(a) mandates strike out for want of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
JXK & Anor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2026] EWHC 608 (KB) (10 April 2026)
The High Court dismissed a claim against Greater Manchester Police over an officer’s misuse of personal data, finding no close connection for vicarious liability.
The High Court struck out or summarily dismissed claims against Greater Manchester Police, holding there was no close connection between a constable’s data misuse and his duties.
Archibald & Ors v East Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 732 (KB) (31 March 2026)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against strike out of a follow-on claim for Article 8 damages and misfeasance, holding it was an abuse under Henderson v Henderson.
Van Buuren v Cambridgeshire Constabulary & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 391 (31 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that triable issues remained in a misfeasance in public office claim over a police collision investigation, so summary judgment and strike out were refused.
Court of Appeal held there were triable issues in a police misfeasance claim over an alleged falsified collision investigation, and refused summary judgment and strike out.
The High Court refused pre-issue interim relief, pre-action disclosure, a stay of a prior costs order, and an interim payment in a misfeasance in public office housing claim.
The High Court dismissed an appeal against strike-out of a follow-on claim as abusive, holding it arose from the same events as earlier judicial review proceedings.
The summary judgment and jurisdiction applications must be adjourned because the PII and confidentiality applications consumed almost two days, leaving insufficient time for the complex factual and legal issues raised. All parties ultimately agreed adjournment was inevitable. The applications require a wide-ranging inquiry and cannot be fairly or realistically heard within the remaining time. Adjournment is consistent with the overriding objective and interests of justice.
Source excerpt
Foxley v Ministry of Defence & Ors (Re Adjournment) [2026] EWHC 672 (KB) (19 March 2026)
The High Court adjourned summary judgment and jurisdiction applications after hearing PII and confidentiality issues first, finding insufficient time and needing a realistic listing.
Explore more
