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 struck out a vehicle fire claim for inadequate pleading, holding that the claimant had not sufficiently particularised breach, causation, or negligence.
Although the contractual analysis indicated that ROBO was providing transport services to the Appellant, the economic and commercial reality was that ROBO merely made its trucks available to the Appellant, who used them in its business as if it owned them. The Appellant controlled and bore the costs of the disputed supplies, and thus was the true recipient for VAT purposes and entitled to input tax credit.
Source excerpt
Pharos Offshore Group Ltd v Keynvor Morlift Ltd [2025] EWHC 1764 (TCC) (11 July 2025)
The High Court held that a 10-day reference in the contract was indicative, not a cap. Pharos recovered most of its invoices, and KML’s counterclaim largely failed.
The High Court refused EE’s application to restrain Avanti from withdrawing satellite backhaul services, holding the contract did not impose an indefinite supply obligation.
EE Ltd v Avanti Broadband Ltd [2025] EWHC 1160 (TCC) (15 May 2025)
The High Court refused EE’s interim injunction seeking to stop Avanti from withdrawing satellite backhaul services, finding no serious issue on contractual obligation.
Magnetic Shields Ltd v Vacuum And Atmosphere Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 2260 (TCC) (02 September 2024)
High Court TCC decision on a furnace refurbishment dispute, rejecting an alleged oral variation and finding several breaches in revision, commissioning, and documentation.
Upper Tribunal VAT appeal about whether telematics black box installation for car insurance was a taxable supply to policyholders or a deemed supply of goods.
The contract was governed by MSL’s purchase order and standard terms, not varied orally, and required VAS to refurbish, commission, and test the Abar furnace to a 5 bar specification. VAS breached the contract by failing to do so and by failing to carry out adequate risk assessment and testing, resulting in safety defects and the overpressure incident. The proper measure of damages is the cost of reinstatement to contractual standard, not the full refurbishment cost or consequential losses, as MSL failed to prove those losses were caused by the breach or reasonably incurred. VAS’s counterclai…
Source excerpt
The High Court held VAS liable for a furnace failure after finding the gas deflection plate had been improperly secured by VAS, not disturbed by Bodycote.
Commercial dispute over biomass boilers, alleged misrepresentations, and a maintenance and woodchip agreement. The claimant succeeded and the counterclaim failed.
Explore more
