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 granted an interim proprietary injunction over shares or sale proceeds, finding a serious issue over trust, urgency, and no adequate damages remedy.
The Tribunal erred in law by refusing amendment applications on a mistaken basis, failing to recognise a continuing act for time purposes, misapplying the burden of proof and detriment tests, failing to consider all evidence in the round, wrongly finding affirmation, and not properly addressing whether unilateral demotion and pay reduction constituted a fundamental breach of contract. The trial was rendered unfair due to interruptions in cross-examination. The judgment was not saved by findings on fairness of dismissal; the case must be remitted for rehearing.
Source excerpt
The court held that a constructive trust does not arise merely because there is a possibility of specific performance in the future; it arises only if specific performance would have been available at the relevant date. The question of whether specific performance would have been granted as at 4 November 2020 involves disputed facts and legal uncertainty, and cannot be determined summarily. The claims in unlawful means conspiracy and procuring breach of contract are inadequately pleaded and liable to be struck out unless amended.
Source excerpt
The use of the Part 8 procedure was inappropriate because the case involves substantial disputes of fact regarding contractual variation and estoppel, and the legal questions are not sufficiently precise or agreed to be determinative on assumed facts.
Source excerpt
Uniserve was not induced to contract by misrepresentation from Hitex. The parties validly varied the delivery schedule, and Hitex did not breach the Revised Schedule. Uniserve wrongfully terminated the Supply Contract, amounting to anticipatory breach. Hitex is entitled to damages for loss of bargain, calculated as contract price less market price for undelivered masks. Caramel and Mr Popeck are not entitled to further commission as the Commission Contract only provides for commission on masks actually delivered to the UK. Uniserve's claims against Maxitrac and Dr Stead fail as they acted wit…
Source excerpt
Birmingham City Council, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWHC 1487 (Admin) (17 June 2024)
Judicial review over withdrawal of Birmingham’s PFI credit support failed on substantive expectations, but succeeded on procedural fairness, and the decision was quashed.
TClarke Contracting Ltd v Bell Build Ltd [2024] EWHC 992 (TCC) (29 April 2024)
The High Court held that TClarke’s claim could not proceed under Part 8 because the dispute involved factual issues about contract variation and estoppel, so it must continue under Part 7.
Necarcu Ltd v Oldham Athletic (2004) Association Football Club Ltd [2023] EWHC 2096 (Comm) (28 June 2023)
The High Court found that Oldham Athletic remained liable on a loan despite later correspondence. The 12 January 2018 letter effected a novation to Mr Corney, but the 15 January letter was ineffective.
The Privy Council held that a deed of conveyance should be rectified to include a strip of land, because the earlier contract showed both parcels were sold.
The High Court held that Litkraft and Goldsmith Williams varied their fee arrangement for high-value cases by email, and rejected illegality and VAT-invoice objections.
Explore more
