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 dismissed applications to strike out pleadings and to stay a fraud claim pending criminal proceedings or bankruptcy.
One Unique LLC v Babaee & Ors [2026] EWHC 717 (Comm) (01 April 2026)
The court refused a strike out and two stay applications in a fraud claim, holding the disputed emails were not protected by without prejudice privilege.
Hurst v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2026] EWHC 85 (Admin) (20 January 2026)
The High Court allowed Mr Hurst’s appeal against SDT findings over emails and letters sent to Dan Neidle, holding the tribunal’s reasoning was deficient and its conclusions unsafe.
The Defendants failed to demonstrate any unambiguous impropriety in the Claimant's conduct; the without prejudice communications were typical of hard-fought commercial litigation and remain protected. The Defendants are not entitled to rely on them in support of their strike out application.
Source excerpt
The Intertek Audit Report and associated documents are not protected by without prejudice privilege because they are not themselves statements or offers made in the course of negotiations, are not records of negotiations or admissions, and there was no express or implied agreement between the parties that they would be privileged. The mere fact that the audit was discussed during without prejudice negotiations does not cloak the resulting report with privilege. Privilege cannot be unilaterally imposed, and the objective evidence does not support a finding of agreement.
Source excerpt
Cardiff City Football Club Ltd v McKay & Ors [2025] EWHC 1439 (Comm) (12 June 2025)
The High Court held that without prejudice communications could not be used to support the Defendants’ abuse of process argument in a contempt dispute.
The court found that most alleged breaches of arbitral confidentiality either did not occur, fell within exceptions, or resulted in information already known to C Corporation, and that granting an injunction would cause significant prejudice to C Corporation and Firm B without conferring any real remedy to A Corporation or D Corporation. The requirements for mandatory injunctive relief were not met, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal of the application.
Source excerpt
A Corporation v Firm B & Anor (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm) (08 May 2025)
The High Court refused to restrain Firm B from acting in a second arbitration, finding no sufficient risk from alleged confidentiality breaches and no basis for broader injunctive relief.
The court held that a without prejudice letter containing an admission of fundamental dishonesty fell within the unambiguous impropriety exception and could be admitted.
The survey reports were not covered by without prejudice privilege because they were commissioned unilaterally by the Claimants and not pursuant to a mutual agreement as part of the settlement process. The Defendant is not barred from relying on the reports at trial, as the Claimants were required to disclose them under the court's disclosure order. The manner in which the Defendant accessed the reports does not justify barring their use, as the Claimants' failure to comply with disclosure obligations was the root cause.
Source excerpt
Explore more
