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
Baker, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 87 (27 April 2026)
The Parole Board refused Baker’s application to reconsider its refusal of release, finding no procedural unfairness, irrationality, or material error of fact.
The Upper Tribunal refused JG’s appeal against a DBS barring decision, finding no material mistake of fact or error of law in the barred-list decision.
Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 463 (Admin) (03 March 2026)
Planning statutory review dismissed: a post-decision fire damaging Hangar 3 did not retrospectively vitiate the inspector’s lawful permission.
Fossett, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 49 (27 February 2026)
The Parole Board refused reconsideration of a decision to deny release but recommend open conditions, finding no fundamental mistake of fact or irrationality.
Bouri, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 41 (19 February 2026)
The Parole Board refused Bouri’s application for reconsideration, finding no irrationality, procedural unfairness, or error of law in the oral panel’s refusal to direct release or open conditions.
The High Court quashed the Parole Board’s refusal to release Ryan Halliday after finding material mistakes of fact and irrational reasoning in both the original decision and reconsideration.
Halliday, R (On the Application Of) v Parole Board for England and Wales [2026] EWHC 340 (Admin) (19 February 2026)
The High Court quashed the Parole Board’s refusal to release Ryan Halliday after finding material mistakes of fact and irrational reasoning in both the original decision and reconsideration.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed CC’s appeal against DBS barring decisions, finding no material mistake of fact or law and confirming her inclusion on both barred lists.
The Upper Tribunal allowed SAK’s appeal against a DBS barring decision, finding mistakes of fact in the allegations of sleeping on duty and poor care.
The Ombudsman’s procedure and jurisdiction were lawful and fair, but the Final Decision was materially affected by a mistake of fact regarding notification of a £7,500 fee in a client care letter, impacting both the finding of unreasonable service and the remedy imposed. The Acceptance Decision allowing late acceptance was lawful. All other grounds of challenge failed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
