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
Sculfor & Ors v MGN Ltd [2026] EWHC 597 (Ch) (16 March 2026)
Preliminary issue on limitation in phone-hacking claims against MGN. The court held Mr Sculfor’s claim was not time-barred, but held the defence succeeded against Ms Cantor, Mr Harkin, Ms Sacre-Dallerup and Mr Cox.
The High Court decided a limitation preliminary issue in five MGN phone-hacking/UIG claims, holding one claimant timely and four claims statute-barred.
Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2026] EWHC 451 (KB) (26 February 2026)
The High Court allowed a key witness to give evidence by video-link from abroad, finding voluntary remote testimony permissible despite comity concerns.
Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Approved Rulings) [2025] EWHC 3237 (KB) (26 November 2025)
The High Court refused anonymity for a proposed witness, rejected two late amendment applications, granted further disclosure, and refused permission to appeal.
The application for anonymity was refused because the evidence was general, speculative, and not objectively substantiated; it did not meet the threshold for derogation from open justice. The two proposed amendments were refused as late, weak, and lacking real prospects of success. The application for further disclosure relating to payments to Lee Harpin was granted as it was targeted, relevant to propensity, and would have been disclosed had Harpin been treated as a TPI.
Source excerpt
Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2573 (KB) (10 October 2025)
The High Court partly allowed amendments and struck out broad generic and Ward allegations, holding that propensity evidence must be specific, relevant, and probative.
The court distinguished between generic and individual costs, awarding claimants indemnity costs for the generic issues due to MGN's dishonest conduct and concealment, but ordering claimants to pay MGN's individual costs (on indemnity basis for Sanderson and Turner, standard for Wightman) due to their failure to beat settlement offers and unreasonable conduct. The court held that the exceptional nature of the generic issues and their benefit to all claimants justified a separate costs order. Interest on individual costs was awarded to MGN.
Source excerpt
MGN engaged in widespread and habitual UIG and VMI against the claimants, with board-level knowledge and concealment. Most claims by Sanderson and Wightman are statute-barred as they could with reasonable diligence have discovered the facts more than 6 years before issue. Damages for UIG can include distress from subsequent publication. Substantial damages, including aggravated damages, are awarded to the Duke of Sussex and Michael Turner for proven UIG and VMI. Claims for acts before 2 October 2000 are not actionable as misuse of private information.
Source excerpt
Mr Grant’s claim for damages and other relief in respect of phone-hacking is statute-barred because, by January 2016, he knew or could with reasonable diligence have known sufficient facts to have confidence to embark on the preliminaries to bringing a claim for phone-hacking against NGN. The other pleaded rights of action (landline tapping, bugging, blagging, burglary, and instructions to private investigators to do those things or other unlawful information gathering acts apart from phone-hacking) are not summarily determined and must be decided at trial, as Mr Grant has a realistically arg…
Source excerpt
Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2024] EWHC 1730 (Ch) (27 June 2024)
The High Court ordered further disclosure on the claimant’s knowledge issue, including searches of devices and messaging accounts and letters seeking third-party documents.
Explore more
