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 Court of Appeal held that TUPE 2006 regulation 4(2)(a) does not transfer an employer’s vicarious liability to third parties for pre-transfer torts by employees.
Permission to serve out is set aside for most claims due to failure to meet the merits test, inadequate pleading, lack of evidence of acts within the UK, and material non-disclosure. However, permission is re-granted for (1) the NDA claim against Exxeta, (2) breach of equitable duties of confidence by the corporate Defendants, and (3) the Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star, as these claims meet the merits test and England is the appropriate forum for them. The Copying Case, most statutory IP claims, and claims against Mr Schmid fail the merits test. Material non-disclosure occurred but is r…
Source excerpt
JXK & Anor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2026] EWHC 608 (KB) (10 April 2026)
The High Court dismissed a claim against Greater Manchester Police over an officer’s misuse of personal data, finding no close connection for vicarious liability.
The High Court struck out or summarily dismissed claims against Greater Manchester Police, holding there was no close connection between a constable’s data misuse and his duties.
Archibald & Ors v East Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 732 (KB) (31 March 2026)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against strike out of a follow-on claim for Article 8 damages and misfeasance, holding it was an abuse under Henderson v Henderson.
The High Court dismissed an appeal against strike-out of a follow-on claim as abusive, holding it arose from the same events as earlier judicial review proceedings.
The defendant solicitors were not negligent in failing to instruct counsel or obtain expert medical evidence before advising settlement. Their assessment of the claim's value and advice to accept the £10,000 offer were within the standards of a competent practitioner, given the significant hurdles of jurisdiction, limitation, vicarious liability, and causation. The claimant was adequately advised of the risk of under-compensation, and there was no breach of duty or causation.
Source excerpt
Fassone v Hugh James (a firm) [2026] EWHC 364 (KB) (20 February 2026)
Professional negligence claim against solicitors dismissed after the court found no breach in advice on a historic abuse settlement.
AB & Ors v Leicestershire County Council [2026] EWHC 331 (KB) (17 February 2026)
The High Court considered limitation and liability claims arising from alleged child abuse at The Beeches children’s home, but held the claims time-barred and entered judgment for the defendant.
The court held that long delays in abuse claims caused serious evidential prejudice and refused to disapply limitation, so the claims were dismissed as statute-barred.
Explore more
