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
Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 1113 (Ch) (15 May 2026)
The court held that MSD remained bound by the confidentiality agreement and could not use the disclosed documents for collateral purposes without a targeted application.
The court granted Merck’s application to keep specified disclosed documents confidential, holding that MSD remained bound by the confidentiality agreement unless it made a targeted application.
The judgment should be published as there is no significant confidential information and the open justice principle outweighs privacy expectations, especially given the lack of a valid arbitration agreement. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success on any ground. Costs are awarded to Mr Jalan on the standard basis, not indemnity, with an interim payment of £173,693.17 to be made within 14 days.
Source excerpt
Clyde & Co Llp v Jalan [2026] EWHC 534 (Comm) (09 March 2026)
The Commercial Court ordered publication of its earlier judgment, refused permission to appeal, and awarded costs on the standard basis with an interim payment.
The High Court partly granted a journalist access to family court reports, orders and judgments, but tightly limited publication to protect children’s privacy.
The Seal and Gag Order is strictly necessary to prevent the Defendant from dissipating assets in light of a real risk of dissipation, non-compliance with asset disclosure obligations, and the need to police the worldwide freezing orders. The order is the minimum necessary derogation from open justice, justified by clear and cogent evidence, and will only be in place until the Disclosure Application is determined on notice to EFG Bank.
Source excerpt
The hearing should take place in private as a proportionate response to protect commercially confidential material, with the publication of the judgment and any necessary redactions to be determined after judgment is given.
Source excerpt
Closed material procedures were justified to protect national security while enabling the court to discharge its duties. The court broadly found in favour of the special advocates' concerns regarding the sensitive material, but not all. The closed judgment does not alter the open judgments previously handed down.
Source excerpt
CX1 & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2024] EWHC 891 (Admin) (23 April 2024)
Administrative Court judgment on ARAP claims and closed material procedure, granting section 6 declarations and orders for non-disclosure to claimants.
Airbus Canada Ltd Partnership v Joint Stock Company Ilyushin Finance Co. (1) [2024] EWHC 791 (Comm) (27 March 2024)
The Commercial Court held that an arbitration-related hearing should take place in private because confidentiality and the early stage of the arbitration justified departing from open justice.
Explore more
