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 Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the Appellant’s review request was made outside the statutory 28-day period. Statutory presumptions of service and receipt were not rebutted by cogent evidence. The Tribunal cannot consider the merits, and the appeal must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal upheld service of ESOS notices but found the £33,750 civil penalty unreasonable, reducing it to £16,875 and directing a revised notice.
The court refused to set aside a Default Costs Certificate, found no valid extension of time for Points of Dispute, but varied the certificate to remove VAT.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed an employer’s appeal against a £400 automatic-enrolment fixed penalty notice. It held the notices were properly served and late compliance did not avoid liability.
The appellant was properly notified of Schedule 36 penalties at his last known place of residence, making his appeal late and without good reason for delay; he was not properly notified of Schedule 24 penalties, so his appeal is not late.
Source excerpt
The applicant was properly served and had multiple opportunities to make representations regarding costs; failure to monitor the registered address and respond was the applicant's own fault. There was no evidence to rebut the presumption that the respondent was liable for costs, and no breach of the indemnity principle occurred. Relief from sanctions was not justified due to serious and unexplained delay.
Source excerpt
Bionome Technology Ltd v Clearwater [2025] EWHC 3518 (Ch) (18 December 2025)
The High Court refused Bionome Technology Ltd’s attempt to set aside a costs order and obtain relief from sanctions, finding proper service and no indemnity-principle problem.
The information notice and penalty notice were validly addressed and served to the appellant at his last known address; the appellant's act of returning the letters unopened was not reasonable; no reasonable excuse for non-compliance was established; the penalty is upheld.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because the request for review was not made within the statutory 28-day period and the Compliance Notice was properly served.
Source excerpt
The evidence was capable of proving that the defendant was served with, and received, the non-molestation order via WhatsApp before any of the conduct charged; any possible defect in the wording of the order did not prevent it from being valid and binding unless and until set aside; awareness of the existence of the order is sufficient for criminal liability under section 42A(2) of the Family Law Act 1996; the recorder's ruling was wrong in law and not reasonable.
Source excerpt
Explore more
