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 held that the claimant should pay D1 and D2’s costs from receipt of its skeleton onwards, with earlier costs reserved.
Iconic Sports Eagle Investment LLC v Textor [2025] EWHC 2620 (Comm) (17 October 2025)
The High Court held that the put option obligations were concurrent conditions and that the claimant was ready and willing to perform, while the defendant was not.
Expert evidence on market practice is not admissible in this claim because the disputed term is defined in ordinary language, the contract was drafted by skilled professionals, and no relevant market practice has been identified that would assist the court; permitting such evidence would usurp the court's function in contract construction.
Source excerpt
Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1484 (Ch) (06 June 2025)
The High Court refused permission to appeal on all grounds, treating the challenges as factual or contractual construction issues best left to the trial judge.
The EAT held that a driver’s contract did not imply payment for extended normal shifts; only express overtime provisions applied. The tribunal’s award was set aside.
The High Court refused leave to appeal under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 and upheld summary dismissal of a s.68 challenge, finding no arguable error or serious irregularity.
RRY v NKX [2025] EWHC 41 (Comm) (17 January 2025)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against a refusal of s.69 Arbitration Act leave and dismissed challenges to the summary dismissal of a s.68 claim.
The exclusion clause (5.2.15) and the definition of 'ABC Liability' are clear and unambiguous, excluding all losses arising out of any liability or actual/alleged non-compliance with anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. The Cover Spreadsheet does not override the exclusion, and there is no obvious error or irrational outcome warranting correction. Pre-contractual negotiations are inadmissible for construction. Estoppel by convention does not apply as there was no shared assumption that ABC liability was excluded, only that it should be excluded.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal considered whether default interest under a facility letter was an unenforceable penalty, and whether post-repayment interest and costs were handled correctly.
MOK Petro Energy FZC v Argo (No. 604) Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1555 (Comm) (19 June 2024)
The Commercial Court refused a late amendment raising new construction and waiver arguments in an insurance dispute, finding it was too late and would broaden the case unfairly.
Explore more
