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
Sculfor & Ors v MGN Ltd [2026] EWHC 597 (Ch) (16 March 2026)
Preliminary issue on limitation in phone-hacking claims against MGN. The court held Mr Sculfor’s claim was not time-barred, but held the defence succeeded against Ms Cantor, Mr Harkin, Ms Sacre-Dallerup and Mr Cox.
The High Court decided a limitation preliminary issue in five MGN phone-hacking/UIG claims, holding one claimant timely and four claims statute-barred.
The Claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment in 2012 or by March 2013 at the latest, thus the claim is statute-barred and cannot overcome the limitation defence.
Source excerpt
Arif v Sanger [2025] EWHC 1540 (KB) (23 June 2025)
Preliminary issue on limitation. The High Court held that the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud in time, so the claim was statute-barred.
Frontiers Capital I Ltd v Flohr (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 678 (Ch) (28 March 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment on limitation grounds and struck out one pleaded “frustration” claim, but left other issues for trial before dismissing the amendment application.
DLA Piper Uk LLP v Henshaws Farming LLP & Ors [2025] EWHC 542 (Ch) (17 March 2025)
Master Clark dismissed strike out and summary judgment applications, finding limitation and assignment issues were fact-sensitive and should go to trial.
Savva v Cuckoo Hill Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 286 (Ch) (26 February 2025)
The High Court found no oral variation of a land sale deal, held the defendants liable for unpaid sums, and rejected their limitation defence.
The High Court held the defendants failed to prove an oral agreement varying a property sale, and entered judgment for unpaid sums plus section 423 relief.
Privy Council appeal about limitation, deliberate concealment, and adverse possession of a Bahamian property. The appeal was allowed and the respondents’ claim failed.
Mr Grant’s claim for damages and other relief in respect of phone-hacking is statute-barred because, by January 2016, he knew or could with reasonable diligence have known sufficient facts to have confidence to embark on the preliminaries to bringing a claim for phone-hacking against NGN. The other pleaded rights of action (landline tapping, bugging, blagging, burglary, and instructions to private investigators to do those things or other unlawful information gathering acts apart from phone-hacking) are not summarily determined and must be decided at trial, as Mr Grant has a realistically arg…
Source excerpt
Explore more
