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 Court of Appeal refused an out-of-time conviction appeal in a sexual offences case, but allowed an out-of-time sentence challenge before dismissing the sentence appeal.
B & D Clays & Chemicals Ltd v Castle Water Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 171 (25 February 2026)
Court of Appeal held that the Water (Meters) Regulations 1988 create a code for proving water charges by meter readings unless the meter is shown to register incorrectly.
Burch & Anor v Nelson (Determined Boundary application - whether boundary capable of being determined with required precision on evidence available) [2026] UKFTT 303 (PC) (23 February 2026)
The tribunal refused to determine a disputed boundary because the 1917 conveyance, plan, and physical evidence did not identify it with enough precision.
Upper Tribunal partly allowed a service charge appeal, upholding most interim charges but ruling that a roof-works charge for Flat 14 was payable and no contingency charge was payable.
Klotho Brands Ltd v Stanford [2025] EWHC 3075 (Ch) (24 November 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to stay enforcement of a costs order, holding there was no requirement that a witness statement be verified under oath.
There was no breach of duty by prosecution or defence; all reasonable lines of inquiry were pursued, tactical decisions by counsel were tenable, and no material was withheld or omitted that would have rendered the conviction unsafe. The appeal fails as there is no real possibility the suggested lines of questioning would have resulted in a different outcome.
Source excerpt
Patel v Parker & Ors [2025] EWHC 2931 (Ch) (07 November 2025)
During trial, the High Court refused the first defendant’s late and overbroad disclosure application, finding it unnecessary, disproportionate, and disruptive.
The application for disclosure was refused because it was made too late, sought more than necessary, and was oppressive, with relevant information already disclosed or offered in a limited form.
Source excerpt
The judge's summing up and response to the jury's request for evidence review were fair, balanced, and consistent with legal principles. No unfairness or imbalance occurred to undermine the safety of the conviction.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division refused extensions of time and leave to appeal in a sexual offence case, upholding admission of prior exposure convictions and rejecting other trial-fairness challenges.
Explore more
