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 refused a stay of execution on a possession warrant, lifted an existing suspension, and allowed enforcement without 14 days’ notice.
The High Court quashed the Parole Board’s refusal to release Malcolm Richards, holding that an IPP/licence error materially affected the risk assessment and could not be fixed under the slip rule.
Richards, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 394 (Admin) (20 February 2026)
The High Court quashed the Parole Board’s release decision, holding that a mistaken belief the claimant was an IPP prisoner was a material factual error, not a slip-rule correction.
Supplemental judgment clarifying declarations from an earlier judicial review concerning Article 3 ECHR breaches in immigration detention at Brook House IRC.
Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors [2025] EWHC 3005 (KB) (17 November 2025)
The High Court continued TfL’s final injunctions against road-blocking protest groups, but only until an earlier review in November 2025. It also amended a costs order under the slip rule.
The judge erred by not applying the 20% guilty plea discount when resentencing under the Slip Rule; the correct sentence is 14 years on count 1, with concurrent sentences of 53 months and 6 months on counts 2 and 3.
Source excerpt
The adjudicator's revised decision was not a correction of a clerical or typographical error within the meaning of the slip rule and was therefore outside his jurisdiction; the original decision stands and is enforceable. The claimant is entitled to summary judgment for the sum awarded in the original decision.
Source excerpt
The application does not fall within the slip rule or CPR 3.1(7) as there was no mistake or slip between the judgment and the order; the intention was clear that the Adjourned Issues no longer needed to be determined.
Source excerpt
There was no mistake in the Security Order to justify amendment under the slip rule, nor a material change of circumstances outside the claimants' control to justify variation under CPR 3.1(7). The alternative ATE policy offered was inadequate as security, lacking sufficient ring-fenced anti-avoidance cover and certainty as to incurred costs. The claimants failed to comply with the Security Order and no extension of time was justified. The claims of the corporate claimants are struck out pursuant to the debarring provisions of the Security Order.
Source excerpt
The judge's remarks on 25 June 2021 did not specify a restriction or cap on recoverable costs as required by CPR 45.4(7); the phrase 'have an eye on CPS rates' was guidance, not a binding limitation. The July 2022 order substantively changed the original order and was made without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is quashed and the original order stands.
Source excerpt
Explore more
