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
UK Global Healthcare Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2026] EWHC 561 (TCC) (12 March 2026)
Summary judgment and strike out were refused in a glove-supply dispute, with the court finding triable issues on prevention, waiver, estoppel, and contractual expiry.
My Protection Guru Ltd v LifeSearch Partners Ltd [2026] EWHC 60 (Comm) (16 January 2026)
High Court commercial dispute over commission calculations, QLC Leads, clawback reserves, and alleged oral variations to written agreements.
GSY Hospitality Ltd v Gladstone Court Developments Ltd [2025] EWHC 3231 (TCC) (11 December 2025)
The High Court held that an expert determination on hotel-development cost apportionment was not binding because it failed to apply the contractual No Oral Modification clauses.
The expert's determination was not binding because it was based on a legally erroneous finding that an oral variation capping liability at £800,000 was valid, despite the contract's No Oral Modification clauses requiring written evidence. The expert failed to consider the relevant legal principles, departing from his mandate in a material respect.
Source excerpt
RMK Maritime (Europe) Ltd & Anor v CMB.Tech NV [2025] EWHC 2739 (Comm) (23 October 2025)
The Commercial Court dismissed RMK’s claim for US$11.7m, holding its advisory work fell within the written agreement and no restitutionary recovery was available.
The partnership, after changes in membership, continued on the terms of the 2014 Partnership Agreement as agreed by all partners, subject to changes in identity and profit shares. Clause 44 did not prevent this adoption. The claimant was entitled to payment of arrears of the annual fixed sum in advance of dissolution accounts, as the defendants had appropriated profits without regard to her entitlement and the claim was clear and quantifiable. Potential liabilities (e.g. to NHS) did not preclude payment, as defendants themselves drew profits without accounting for such liabilities.
Source excerpt
The EAT dismissed Mr Dobbie’s appeal, holding that his consultancy agreement entitled him to 40% only of fees for work he personally did for client A.
Kyndryl's claims (except for breach of an alleged express or implied term of the DCHA entitling IBM to a variation) have a real prospect of success and should proceed to trial. The assignment of claims was not avoided by the DCHA's consent clause. The Variation Agreement and estoppel cases are sufficiently arguable. The unjust enrichment claim may proceed, subject to further particulars. The claim for breach of an express or implied term of the DCHA as pleaded has no real prospect of success and is summarily dismissed.
Source excerpt
Kyndryl UK Ltd v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd [2024] EWHC 2329 (TCC) (18 September 2024)
The High Court refused Jaguar Land Rover’s summary judgment and strike-out application on most grounds, allowing Kyndryl’s amendment. One alleged contractual term failed.
Magnetic Shields Ltd v Vacuum And Atmosphere Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 2260 (TCC) (02 September 2024)
High Court TCC decision on a furnace refurbishment dispute, rejecting an alleged oral variation and finding several breaches in revision, commissioning, and documentation.
Explore more
