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
UK Global Healthcare Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2026] EWHC 561 (TCC) (12 March 2026)
Summary judgment and strike out were refused in a glove-supply dispute, with the court finding triable issues on prevention, waiver, estoppel, and contractual expiry.
Zaha Hadid Ltd v The Zaha Hadid Foundation [2026] EWCA Civ 192 (27 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that a trade mark licence of indefinite duration was terminable by either party on reasonable notice, and was not a restraint of trade.
The High Court dismissed Crestline’s strike-out and summary judgment applications in a bond dispute, finding unresolved issues over assignment and leaving quantum for trial.
Crestline Direct Finance LP v Insurance Company Euroins AD [2026] EWHC 423 (TCC) (26 February 2026)
The High Court dismissed Crestline’s strike-out and summary judgment applications, finding unresolved issues about the validity and scope of assignment under a construction bond.
Summary judgment was granted for Actinon on an admitted USD 635,810 debt, and Char Biocarbon’s reverse summary judgment application on Year 4 royalties was dismissed.
Contis Group Ltd & Anor v Swipewallet Holdings Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (21 November 2025)
The Commercial Court ordered bifurcation of trial and granted security for costs, finding limited overlap between liability and quantum and only partial protection from ATE insurance.
A party does not lose an express contractual right to terminate by waiver by election unless it actually knows of the right; continued performance without such knowledge does not amount to election. URE did not know of its right to terminate until legal advice was received, so had not elected to affirm. Quantum of termination payment is 50% of anticipated future income, not net profit.
Source excerpt
Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (t/a Hitex) & Ors v Uniserve Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1212 (02 October 2025)
The Court of Appeal allowed Uniserve’s appeal over a 2020 PPE supply contract, held Hitex could not claim damages for non-acceptance, and dismissed the commission appeal.
District Judge erred by failing to consider events of default under clauses 23.1(c) and (o), misapplied burden of proof regarding evidence for breach of clause 18, and wrongly required compliance with all formalities of clause 18; appeal allowed and statutory demands reinstated.
Source excerpt
The TLA expired at the end of the Initial Term as neither positive performance nor mutual understanding of business goals was established; the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. No Termination Sum was payable. The Defendants' actions were not part of a conspiracy but a brand protection strategy. No torts of malicious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, or malicious prosecution were made out, and no damages or injunctive/declaratory relief were warranted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
