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 Upper Tribunal held that long tolerated parking did not permanently release the covenant, but the landlord had not given reasonable notice to resume strict rights.
The defendant made false representations about the SPV 20 loan, knowing them to be untrue, with intent to induce investment. The claimants relied on these representations and suffered loss. The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is no compelling reason for trial. Summary judgment is granted.
Source excerpt
Leahy v Schneider Investment Associates LLP [2025] EWHC 2900 (Ch) (07 November 2025)
The High Court set aside a statutory demand, finding a genuine and substantial dispute over whether an unlimited personal guarantee was enforceable only if payment was made to MCL ahead of SIA.
Lowry Trading Ltd & Anor v Haycox [2025] EWHC 2754 (Comm) (09 October 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment on a deceit claim over SPV 20, finding the defendant made knowingly false statements to induce investment and raised no real defence.
The High Court set aside a statutory demand against Mr Leahy, finding a genuine and substantial dispute over an unlimited personal guarantee and related estoppel and misrepresentation defences.
The High Court held Pianoforte liable to reimburse Kiko for AGA payments and the disputed discount, but rejected liability for New Lease-related costs.
Kiko UK Ltd v Jamino Limited (in liquidation) & Anor [2025] EWHC 1510 (Comm) (20 June 2025)
The court upheld Kiko’s claim in part, enforcing indemnity obligations for lease-related payments but rejecting liability for New Lease costs and the claimed discount.
The claim failed because no implied agreement to extend the SPA dates was established, no common understanding existed to found estoppel by convention, and detrimental reliance was insufficient to found estoppel by representation or promissory estoppel. Payments and assurances did not amount to contractual acknowledgment. The defendant was not estopped from denying liability for the additional purchase price under clause 3.1(a).
Source excerpt
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch) (19 December 2024)
The High Court found Dr Wright in contempt for breaching anti-suit and anti-threat injunctions by threatening and filing a new claim asserting prohibited Bitcoin-related rights.
The High Court held Dr Wright in contempt for breaching an injunction by threatening and issuing proceedings about Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, copyright, and database rights.
Explore more
