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 appeal is struck out due to repeated failure by the appellant to comply with case management directions and failure to make representations as invited under Rule 8(4).
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal held that omitting ET1 particulars was a minor error under EAT Rule 37(5) and granted an extension of time for Parker’s appeal.
Parker v West Midlands Trains Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 357 (25 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Parker’s omission of particulars from his EAT appeal was a minor error and granted an extension of time.
The tribunal struck out Jennifer Johnston’s section 166 DPA application after the ICO issued an outcome on her complaint, finding no remaining procedural failing.
The Tribunal allowed a letting agent’s appeal, quashing a final notice and £2,000 penalty because the notice did not properly state how the penalty could be paid.
Barot & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 218 (04 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal refused an extension of time and permission to appeal in a judicial review immigration case, holding the delay serious and the underlying claim not particularly strong.
Summary judgment was entered for the defendants after the court held the claim was time-barred because legally represented claimants did not file electronically as required.
Balachandra (t/a Manor Dental Surgery) v NHS Commissioning Board (Known As NHS England) (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 294 (KB) (13 February 2026)
High Court dispute over unpaid NHS dental UDAs and Covid-era contract arrangements, with late FP17 and etriage submissions central to the issues.
Hakim-Hashemi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 193 (30 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal granted the Secretary of State an extension of time and permission to appeal, despite serious delay, because the issues had public interest and arguable merit.
The imported equipment was not designed solely for use by disabled persons, as conceded by the appellant and confirmed by product specifications. Therefore, it does not qualify for VAT or customs duty relief under the relevant statutory provisions. Previous grants of relief and HMRC guidance do not alter the statutory requirement.
Source excerpt
Explore more
