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
Upper Tribunal appeal on FTT case management in a tax dispute. The UT set aside directions requiring additional locum evidence and postponing HMRC particulars.
Appeal against rent repayment orders dismissed. The Upper Tribunal held that the FTT could proceed in the appellant’s absence after he gave no sufficient explanation for a remote hearing.
Roadget Business PTE Ltd & Anor v Whaleco UK Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 221 (05 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against disclosure of a supplier list into the outer confidentiality ring rather than the inner ring.
The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of asset dissipation sufficient to justify disclosure under CPR 25.1(1)(g); the evidence presented falls below the low bar required for jurisdictional and discretionary relief.
Source excerpt
The Employment Tribunal erred by issuing a Rule 21 judgment without seeking clarification of the scope of the claim, given express indications of potential further claims and supporting documents. The judge should have paused to request further information or clarification before disposing of the claim. This fell outside the reasonable exercise of discretion.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court reinstated the Tribunal’s refusal to certify opt-out collective competition proceedings, holding the claims were weak and opt-in was practicable.
The costs management orders dated 11 October 2022 and 30 January 2023 bind the assessment and dictate how the bill of costs should be drawn. The court cannot revise or disapprove agreed budgeted costs, but must take into account any comments recorded on the face of the order regarding reasonableness and proportionality when assessing costs.
Source excerpt
The tribunal erred in law by categorising the claimant's amendment as a new complaint rather than a re-labelling of facts already pleaded. No reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could have concluded that the claimant was raising an entirely new complaint. This error tainted the balancing exercise required by Selkent and led to consideration of irrelevant factors such as time limits. The amendment should have been considered as a re-labelling, and the refusal was perverse.
Source excerpt
GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL [2025] EWCA Civ 933 (24 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld conditions barring Xinbo from defending unless it procured transfer of shares and paid €10 million into court, despite inadequate reasons below.
Ward v Rai (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB) (03 July 2025)
Appeal over detailed assessment costs allowed after the court held the judge had erred in principle by permitting a late, more specific Points of Dispute schedule.
Explore more
