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
Although a 90:10 liability offer is in principle capable of engaging CPR 36.17, on the facts of this case, liability was never determined and the outcome was not more advantageous to the claimant than the offer. Therefore, the claimant's solicitors are limited to recovering fixed costs.
Source excerpt
Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026] EWCA Civ 13 (16 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that a 90:10 liability Part 36 offer can, in principle, engage CPR 36.17, but the claimant could not recover enhanced costs here.
The High Court refused a claimant’s application to withdraw a Part 36 offer, holding that his later change of mind was not a change of circumstances under CPR 36.10(3).
The Upper Tribunal held that “permission to stay” includes settlement under Appendix Long Residence, so the Part 9 criminality bar applied and the refusal was lawful.
Father's rights under Zimbabwean law are access rights, not rights of custody; no express or implied right to veto removal from jurisdiction. Hague Convention distinguishes custody from access. Application fails at Article 3 threshold; father does not have rights of custody. Even if Article 3 satisfied, T is settled in England, acquiescence not proven, grave risk not established, child's objections insufficient, Article 20 not incorporated, and discretion would not be exercised to return.
Source excerpt
F v L & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2190 (Fam) (20 August 2025)
Hague Convention child abduction claim dismissed after the court held the father had access rights only, not rights of custody, under Zimbabwean law.
The English court retains welfare jurisdiction because the request for return is still pending under Article 7(1)(b) of the 1996 Hague Convention, as the Polish return order has not been enforced and active enforcement efforts continue. The mother has not satisfied all four criteria required for jurisdiction to transfer to Poland.
Source excerpt
T v H [2025] EWHC 1875 (Fam) (09 July 2025)
The High Court held that England and Wales retained welfare jurisdiction over two children under Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention because the Polish return request was still pending.
The appeals were allowed by consent as the respondent accepted that allegations of dishonesty and scandalous conduct were incorrectly made and Tribunal findings were incorrect; claims were dismissed following settlement.
Source excerpt
The father did not have rights of custody under Colorado law at the time of removal; the mother had sole decision-making responsibility and was entitled to remove the children. Therefore, the removal was not wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention and no obligation to return arises. Even if wrongful, the defences of settlement and grave risk of harm would not succeed, but the children's objections are established and, in the exercise of discretion, a return order would not be made.
Source excerpt
Explore more
