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 notices were properly served to the appellant's registered address, the appellant's bare assertion of non-receipt is insufficient to displace the presumption of service, and the penalty is appropriate and fixed by statute.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because no review of the Escalating Penalty Notice was requested or completed within the statutory time limits, and the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption that the notice was properly served and received.
Source excerpt
Service of the revocation notice was effected when the email was received by the appellant’s email system on 2 September 2024, regardless of whether it was filtered into the spam folder or actually read by the appellant. The statutory 21-day appeal period was triggered on that date, and the Magistrates’ Court did not err in law in finding that service was effective and the appeal was out of time.
Source excerpt
Berow v Maidstone Borough Council [2026] EWHC 635 (Admin) (17 March 2026)
Challenge to dismissal of a licensing appeal as out of time failed. The High Court held email service of the revocation notice was effective and time ran from 2 September 2024.
Ropa v Kharis Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 259 (Comm) (09 February 2026)
The High Court held that a defective arbitration claim form could be waived, the notice to arbitrate was effective, and the dispute must go to arbitration.
The appeal was filed outside the 28-day statutory time limit set by s.21(2) Care Standards Act 2000. None of the appellant's reasons—including late receipt, lack of legal advice, misunderstanding of the time limit, or awaiting further information—amounted to exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the tribunal had no discretion to extend time, and the appeal could not be admitted.
Source excerpt
Regency Property Management (UK) Ltd v Aleksandrowicz & Anor [2025] EWCC 74 (19 December 2025)
The County Court at Luton dismissed a possession claim, holding the section 21 notice was invalid because the property was an unlicensed HMO when it was served.
The court held a section 21 notice invalid because the property was an unlicensed HMO, no effective local authority notification was proved, and the possession claim was dismissed.
The adoption order was made without proper notice to the birth father, constituting a procedural irregularity. The court, before sealing the order, must allow the father an opportunity to apply to set aside the order under Family Procedure Rules 27.5, as the error was identified promptly and the order not yet perfected.
Source excerpt
Dhandapani, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1244 (07 October 2025)
The Court of Appeal held there was an arguable case that a curtailment email was not received, and that judicial review time runs from service, not decision.
Explore more
