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 High Court granted Microsoft Norwich Pharmacal relief against Oxide Group Limited to identify users and operators of RedVDS.com and preserve evidence.
High Court case on an ex parte imaging order over an employee’s devices and cloud accounts, with partial variation of the order and refusal of direct claimant access to the imaged material.
Vertical Aerospace Group Ltd v Ngoma [2026] EWHC 1096 (KB) (08 May 2026)
The High Court upheld an imaging order against a former employee joining a competitor, but narrowed overbroad information-provision requirements and rejected discharge.
Microsoft Corporation v Oxide Group Ltd [2026] EWHC 346 (Comm) (13 January 2026)
The High Court granted Microsoft Norwich Pharmacal, preservation, and non-disclosure relief against Oxide Group Limited to identify operators of RedVDS.com.
Khan v Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall Police [2025] EWHC 3258 (KB) (10 December 2025)
The High Court refused a pre-action application to preserve and inspect police-held exhibits, finding no real risk of destruction or concealment of evidence.
The Claimant failed to establish a real, rather than fanciful, risk that evidence would be destroyed, concealed, or tampered with by the Defendant or its officers. The Defendant provided credible assurances of preservation. Pre-action interim relief is exceptional and not justified absent imminent proceedings and clear risk. The application is misconceived and refused.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted a proprietary injunction over Seboni profits, refused a freezing order, and allowed targeted information and preservation orders in a shareholder unfair prejudice dispute.
Given the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure obligations, evidence of undisclosed WhatsApp messages, deletion of laptop data after litigation was contemplated, and the real risk of concealment or destruction of relevant documents, an imaging order is justified and proportionate. The order is limited to the minimum necessary to preserve evidence, with appropriate safeguards for privacy and privilege.
Source excerpt
On discontinuance, the court reduced the defendant’s costs by 20% for admitted collateral use of witness statements and failure to preserve evidence, and ordered ADR before assessment.
QRT v JBE [2024] EWHC 857 (KB) (09 February 2024)
The court continued and modified preservation orders over the defendant’s electronic devices, while effectively staying substantive civil progress pending related criminal proceedings.
Explore more
