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
Court of Appeal dismissed two sponsor-licence revocation appeals, upholding J’s Supermarket’s revocation and largely sustaining Prestige’s on alternative grounds.
The High Court quashed the revocation of Moon Fish Limited’s sponsor licence, holding that the Home Office misread Annex C1(aa) and acted unfairly.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed an EUSS appeal after finding no evidence of the claimed family relationship or dependency needed for settled or pre-settled status.
Administrative Court appeal dismissed against a teacher prohibition order, with the court upholding hearsay-based findings, dishonesty, and a two-year review period.
The Upper Tribunal refused reconsideration of permission to appeal in a tax dispute, holding there was no arguable error in the FTT’s treatment of an HMRC barring application.
The interim suspension order is extended for 14 months (to end of September 2026) because the allegations remain serious, the risk to the public persists, and the investigation is incomplete, but the court finds the delays unacceptable and expects the case to be concluded by then. The prejudice to the social worker does not yet outweigh the public interest, but this is likely the final extension barring exceptional circumstances.
Source excerpt
Both claims fail because the IRP made PZP's family aware of their right to adjourn for SEN expert, and the family voluntarily, knowingly waived it; IRP's recommendation for GDP reconsideration, though lacking explanation, was not materially irrational given subsequent GDP reconsideration; STW's claim fails as no evidence established X's involvement in prior incident, IRP's error on protected characteristic was immaterial, and equalities duties were substantively considered throughout the process.
Source excerpt
The tribunal was correct to find the appellant made a dishonest declaration, lacked insight, and posed a risk of repetition. The sanction of erasure was appropriate and proportionate given the gravity of misconduct and entrenched lack of insight. Procedural failings, allegations of bias, discrimination, and whistleblower status did not render the decision unjust.
Source excerpt
The First-tier Tribunal upheld the refusal of a third trainee driving instructor licence, finding no exceptional circumstances and no error in the Registrar’s discretion.
The Tribunal allowed an ADI’s appeal against removal from the register, finding insufficient proof he was properly notified of the final Standards Check.
Explore more
