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 assessed damages after a Court of Appeal remittal in a Wesos supply dispute, fixing the reasonable market price, deductions, and interest.
Ksy Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2026] EWHC 764 (Comm) (30 March 2026)
High Court damages judgment on a Wesos supply contract, assessing non-acceptance losses, reasonable market price, deduction of avoided costs, and interest.
High Court dispute over an asset purchase agreement, focusing on order book warranties, the meaning of “new work,” and limited counterclaims for machinery and scrap metal.
The High Court refused summary judgment in a contract dispute over medical imaging equipment, holding that price, payment, delivery, and order terms required trial.
The Imaging Centre Assets Ltd v Canon Medical Systems Ltd [2026] EWHC 311 (Ch) (13 February 2026)
The court refused summary judgment on liability in a contract dispute over orders for medical imaging units, holding that key issues over price, delivery and implied terms required trial.
Commercial Court held that Onex was not liable for an Iraqi SRFO cargo containing 16ppm organic chlorides; the contract’s “typicals” were not binding warranties.
Mercuria Energy Trading SA v Onex DMCC [2026] EWHC 130 (Comm) (22 January 2026)
Commercial Court held that an Organic Chloride entry was a non-binding typical, not a guarantee, and dismissed Mercuria’s claim over a contaminated fuel oil cargo.
Moeve Trading SAU v Mael Trading FZ LLC (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 17 (Comm) (13 January 2026)
The High Court granted summary judgment for the seller for the cargo price, holding that the letters of credit were conditional payment only and that title had passed.
The High Court held that the contract was concluded on PO 361 terms, without the defendant’s export conditions, and that Sale of Goods Act implied terms applied.
The Supreme Court held that English law does not recognise a Mackay v Dick doctrine of deemed fulfilment, so the sellers could not claim the deposits as debts.
Explore more
