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
High Court ruling on strike out and summary judgment in a disputed Centec assignment claim, including disclosure issues, reflective loss, and champerty.
Blundell & Anor v Davies & Ors [2026] EWHC 176 (Ch) (02 February 2026)
The High Court partly dismissed a strike-out and summary judgment application in a dispute over Centec’s affairs, striking out only Mrs Blundell’s personal claim against two defendants.
The High Court struck out a shareholder’s contract claim, holding the loss was reflective loss and that clause 20.1.2 did not give him third-party enforcement rights.
Dekel v RE Capital Administrators Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 2976 (Ch) (13 November 2025)
High Court strike-out and summary judgment application in a shareholder claim was allowed because the loss claimed was reflective and the claimant lacked standing under the contract.
KL Capital Ltd v Townsley & Ors [2025] EWHC 2740 (Comm) (24 October 2025)
The High Court refused permission to appeal against rulings on reflective loss and contractual construction in a Commercial Court dispute.
The Commercial Court refused the Third Defendant’s application for permission to appeal in a dispute about reflective loss and contractual construction.
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1307 (16 October 2025)
The Court of Appeal allowed ENRC’s appeal against refusal of late amendments to its loss claims, holding the judge gave too much weight to speculative prejudice.
The Court of Appeal allowed ENRC’s appeal and permitted late amendments to its quantum pleadings, holding the judge gave too much weight to speculative prejudice from missing subsidiary documents.
The claim is time-barred because, on the evidence, the claimant (through Mr Horlick) had knowledge of the relevant facts to bring the pleaded claims by November 2013, more than six years before the claim was issued. The claimant cannot rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 to postpone limitation, as it could with reasonable diligence have discovered the facts. The proposed amendment to plead fraudulent misrepresentation is a new cause of action based on substantially different facts and is also time-barred; permission to amend is refused.
Source excerpt
The court found that the defendants, led by Mr Serwin, orchestrated fraudulent investment schemes through Optimus and Falcon funds, misappropriating pension assets via inflated share sales, opaque ETI structures, and excessive commissions. Maltese law applied to Falcon Phase, Swedish law to Optimus Phase. The claimant proved tortious and fiduciary liability against Mr Serwin, Mr Ökten, and certain corporate defendants for specific sums. Interest awarded at 8% under Maltese law from claim date. Proprietary remedy granted for breach of fiduciary duty.
Source excerpt
Explore more
