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
Lodhia v Twelve Trees Management Company (Bromley-By-Bow) Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1177 (KB) (18 May 2026)
After Lodhia discontinued his defamation claim, the High Court held he must pay the defendants’ costs, including costs of prior applications and amendments.
CPR 45.24 did not apply as the claim would have exited the EL/PL Protocol due to denial of liability and contributory negligence; costs should be limited to fixed costs under Section IIIA of Part 45, not Portal costs; the judge erred in applying CPR 45.24 and failing to exercise discretion.
Source excerpt
MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775 (24 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that, once protective Part 8 proceedings are issued, the court may make case-management orders requiring compliance with Stage 2 of the low-value RTA protocol.
The Court of Appeal held that, once protective Part 8 proceedings are issued, the court can make case management orders directing compliance with PAP steps.
Wilson v Stroud Green Housing Co-operative Ltd [2025] EWHC 1508 (KB) (19 June 2025)
The High Court refused a renewed application for permission to appeal against refusal of a stay in a defamation claim, finding no arguable error in the Deputy Master’s discretion.
Ferguson v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2025] EWCC 30 (29 May 2025)
Appeal about costs after a personal injury trial. The court held the claimant’s pre-action valuation was unreasonable and upheld a fixed-costs outcome under CPR 45.
Johnson v Choice Support [2025] EWHC 1020 (SCCO) (28 April 2025)
Detailed assessment costs judgment on whether the EL/PL Protocol applied and whether the claim was reasonably valued above the protocol limit.
Birley & Anor v Heritage Independent Living Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 44 (28 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Heritage’s appeal, holding that the claim was a personal injury claim and that QOCS applied despite related privacy and media costs issues.
The Court of Appeal held that QOCS applied to a personal injury claim framed alongside media and privacy causes of action, and dismissed the appeal on abuse of process and costs.
The claims against the First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants were struck out and summary judgment granted because the pleadings were vague, incoherent, inadequately particularised, unsupported by evidence, and failed to comply with procedural rules and pre-action protocols. The proposed re-amendments did not cure these deficiencies, and there was no realistic prospect of an adequate pleading being produced. The overriding objective and efficient use of court resources justified refusing permission to re-amend and striking out the claims.
Source excerpt
Explore more
