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 High Court held that Spanish law and the Baremo governed damages, rejected reliance on Rome II recital 33 to exceed Baremo limits, and found 65% contributory negligence.
JP Morgan International Finance Ltd v WEREALIZE.COM Ltd [2025] EWHC 1842 (Comm) (18 July 2025)
The Commercial Court granted anti-suit relief restraining Greek proceedings by JPM against Viva Wallet directors, holding the claims were barred by the shareholders’ agreement.
The Commercial Court considered anti-suit relief arising from Greek proceedings against Viva Wallet directors and contractual restraints in a shareholders’ agreement.
Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors v Al Sari & Ors (Malicious Prosecution)(Rev1) [2025] EWHC 400 (Comm) (27 February 2025)
The High Court held that DIFC law governed malicious prosecution claims arising from DIFC proceedings, so the claims were not arguable because DIFC law did not recognise the tort.
The defendant's application to strike out or obtain summary judgment on the French law claim fails because it is not possible to conclude, on the pleaded facts and at this interlocutory stage, that the claimant's case on the applicability of French law is bound to fail or has no real prospect of success. The issue of where the damage occurred is fact-sensitive and should be determined at trial after full examination of the facts.
Source excerpt
Claimants' costs are to be summarily assessed at Guideline Rates, not at the higher rates claimed, as no special justification was provided. Permission to appeal is refused as none of the four grounds advanced by the Defendants have a realistic prospect of success. Proceedings are to continue without stay; Defence to be served by 25 May 2023.
Source excerpt
The right to interest under Spanish law is a substantive right closely associated with the right to damages and, as such, must be applied as part of the lex causae under Rome II, not as a matter of English procedural discretion. The judges below were correct to award interest at Spanish rates, but their reasoning was wrong in treating it as a discretionary procedural matter rather than a substantive right.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal held that Spanish penalty interest under Act 50/1980 is substantive under Rome II and recoverable in England; subrogated medical costs claim also succeeded.
Nicholls & Anor v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros SA [2024] EWCA Civ 718 (27 June 2024)
Court of Appeal held Spanish statutory interest under Act 50/1980 was substantive for Rome II and that Ms Sedgwick could bring the subrogated claim in her own name.
MF Tel Sarl v Visa Europe Ltd [2023] EWHC 1336 (Ch) (05 June 2023)
The High Court refused Visa’s application to strike out or summarily dismiss MF Tel’s French-law claim, holding the Rome II damage question was fact-sensitive.
Explore more
