England and Wales Case Law

Optosafe Limited & Anor v John Mark Robertson

The defendant breached the Non-Representation and Non-Disparagement Clauses by publicly representing himself as connected with the claimants and making derogatory statements. His persistent campaign of emails and LinkedIn posts, including threats, insults, and baseless allegations, constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The statutory defences of prevention or detection of crime and reasonableness were not made out. The claimants are entitled to a final injunction, damages for harassment, and a general civil restraint order.

Source excerpt

• Breach of contract
• Restrictive covenants
• Non-disparagement
• Harassment
• Civil restraint orders
• Damages

Read case analysis

J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

The respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs award under EAT Rules; the appeal's success alone is not sufficient reason to award costs.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Race discrimination
• Breach of contract
• Victimisation
• Harassment

Read case analysis

Justin Oliver Zinda v Ark Schools & Anor

The claimant failed to establish the existence of new evidence, conscious and deliberate dishonesty, or materiality as required to set aside the prior judgments for fraud. The claims were totally without merit, time-barred, and abusive, warranting summary judgment and strike out against both defendants.

Source excerpt

• Fraudulent procurement of judgment
• Strike out
• Summary judgment
• Civil restraint orders
• Limitation period
• Breach of contract

Read case analysis

Wey Bridging Finance Limited v Adam Wayne Marlow & Anor

The court found that the 2019 Facility was valid, supported by consideration, free from duress, unconscionable dealing, or unfair relationship, and enforceable against Mr Marlow. The Option agreement was breached by LFL granting leases with rights of way, constituting a substantial breach, and was validly terminated, entitling the Claimant as assignee to recover the sums paid.

Source excerpt

• Loan facility agreements
• Economic duress
• Unconscionable bargains
• Unfair relationship under consumer credit act
• Option agreements
• Assignment of claims

Read case analysis

NoCopyrightSounds Limited v AEI Music Limited & Anor

There are serious issues to be tried and the claimant's case is stronger. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant if the injunction were refused, given the nature of the rights and the defendants' financial position. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

Source excerpt

• Interim injunctions
• Copyright
• Breach of contract
• Adequacy of damages
• Balance of convenience

Read case analysis

Trayport Limited v E-Star Trading GmbH & Ors

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

• Copyright infringement
• Database rights
• Breach of confidence
• Trade secrets
• Breach of contract
• Jurisdiction and service out

Read case analysis

Westbase Technology Limited v Vuzix Corporation & Ors

The court found a good arguable case that an oral contract exists and that England is the appropriate forum, but the tort claims do not meet the serious issue to be tried threshold. The Permission Order is upheld for the contract claim but varied to exclude tort claims. No deliberate failure in full and frank disclosure was found, so the Permission Order is not set aside in full.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Service out of jurisdiction
• Choice of law
• Forum conveniens
• Breach of contract
• Negligent misrepresentation

Read case analysis

Navaian & Anor v King Charles III Charitable Fund & Ors

Navaian & Anor v King Charles III Charitable Fund & Ors [2026] EWHC 1220 (KB) (21 May 2026)

The High Court held that claims over a failed fundraising collaboration had no realistic prospect of success, save for an arguable £25,000 expenses claim against FareShare.

• Breach of contract
• Misrepresentation
• Unlawful interference with economic relations
• Summary judgment
• Strike out
• Charities act compliance

Read case analysis

Azadeh Amanda Navaian & Anor v King Charles III Charitable Fund & Ors

The High Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on breach of contract, misrepresentation, and interference claims, leaving only a possible £25,000 expense claim against FareShare.

• Breach of contract
• Misrepresentation
• Unlawful interference with economic relations
• Summary judgment
• Strike out
• Charitable fundraising agreements

Read case analysis

Kyte v MclAren Automotive Ltd & Anor

Kyte v MclAren Automotive Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC) (19 May 2026)

The High Court struck out inadequately particularised contract and negligence claims over a car fire, but allowed time to amend the pleadings.

• Breach of contract
• Negligence
• Pleading requirements
• Causation
• Res ipsa loquitur
• Supply of goods and services act 1982

Read case analysis