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
Currenex Inc & Ors v Colin Lloyd & Anor [2026] EWHC 925 (KB) (13 February 2026)
The High Court granted US-requested evidence orders under the 1975 Act, finding the narrowed document and deposition requests relevant, particularised, and not oppressive.
Jennifer was the successful party at trial and Adam failed to establish proprietary rights or invalidate the disputed wills. Settlement offers were not sufficiently certain or guaranteed to make Jennifer's refusal unreasonable. Costs are awarded to Jennifer on the standard basis, reduced by 10% for failure on the Sham Tenancies Claim.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted permission to appeal and cross-appeal, ordered indemnity costs against the claimants, extended an interim undertaking, and refused a stay.
Scott v The Estate of Richard Norman Scott & Ors (Consequential matters) [2025] EWHC 3502 (Ch) (24 November 2025)
The court made consequential costs orders after trial, holding Jennifer was the successful party but reducing her costs by 10% for one failed issue.
Documents held by the Research Team, including those obtained prior to formal engagement, are within the Claimants’ control for disclosure purposes due to a cooperative arrangement and practical access. The Claimants’ assessment of control was erroneous; all relevant documents must be searched and disclosed. An unless order is not justified at this stage given assurances of cooperation and absence of deliberate defiance.
Source excerpt
Permission to use inadvertently disclosed privileged documents depends on whether it should have been obvious to a reasonable solicitor that the disclosure was a mistake. Where documents were not obviously privileged, or the mistake was not obvious, permission is granted. Where documents were clearly privileged, marked as such, or contained legal advice, and the mistake should have been obvious, permission is refused. The court applied the Al Fayed principles, considering the nature of the documents, the disclosure process, the involvement of lawyers, inconsistent redactions, and the context…
Source excerpt
Application for disclosure guidance was premature and inappropriate as no significant difference of approach had materialised; determination of privilege issues requires a formal application after privilege is asserted; costs to be borne by claimants at 75% of assessed amount to reflect case management utility.
Source excerpt
The defendant’s privilege review errors and delays must not drive the litigation timetable; directions are set to ensure timely hearing and evidence exchange. Costs for the hearing are awarded to claimants and interested parties due to defendant’s disclosure failures.
Source excerpt
The claimant's Points of Dispute were non-compliant with PD 47.8.2 and Precedent G, failed to identify items or grounds, were prolix and incomprehensible, and must be struck out except for limited compliant points. Allegations of misconduct and privilege were precluded by issue estoppel, abuse of process, lack of reservation to assessment, and lack of clarity.
Source excerpt
No special or significant change of circumstances has occurred since the undertakings were given; undertakings were freely negotiated and accepted in full knowledge of the Scottish proceedings and the likelihood of Mr Duthie giving evidence; the application to vary is dismissed both on the special circumstances test and on an overall merits-based approach.
Source excerpt
Explore more
