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
Mesothelioma claim failed because the claimant did not prove asbestos exposure while working for the first defendant in 1972.
Appeal against a rent repayment order succeeded because there was no evidential basis for finding a third occupier lived at the property as her only or main residence.
The defendant's refusal to re-assess the claimant's age was irrational and unlawful because it failed to properly apply the ADCS Guidance, did not logically consider whether new evidence might lead to a significantly different conclusion, and demonstrated process and outcome irrationality by dismissing the taskira despite accepting its genuineness.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a claim that US$30 million was an oral loan, finding the evidence instead supported the Defendants’ explanation that it was a service fee.
The decision to refuse compensation for loss of access to employment and benefits, and to award Level 3 (not Level 4) for 'Impact on Life', was lawful. The Scheme requires actual (written) applications for benefits; oral refusals do not suffice. The decision-makers gave adequate reasons, acted rationally, and were entitled to assess the evidence as they did. The exclusion of oral applications is not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR, as it is justified by the need for verifiability and protection of public funds.
Source excerpt
The claim raises a factual case which, taken at its highest, could properly succeed at a contested factual hearing. The permission-stage threshold is crossed, and the case should be transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fresh factual determination. The process and reasoning of the local authority are sufficiently open to question that permission for judicial review must be granted.
Source excerpt
Guilin GFS Monk Fruit Corporation, R (On the Application Of) v Food Standards Agency [2024] EWHC 614 (Admin) (19 March 2024)
The High Court quashed the Agencies’ novel food decision on monk fruit decoctions, holding they misapplied the evidential guidance and failed to assess the evidence as a whole.
The High Court quashed the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland’s decision that monk fruit decoctions were novel food, finding they had applied an inflexible evidential test.
Muhammadi, R (On the Application Of) v Liverpool City Council [2024] EWHC 483 (Admin) (05 March 2024)
The High Court granted permission in an age-assessment judicial review, finding the claimant had an arguable case and transferring the matter to the Upper Tribunal.
The best approximation of the boundary, based on historical aerial photographs and the evidence, is the Red Line as shown on the agreed plan. The claimants failed to prove that the boundary followed the Blue Line or that the defendants trespassed on their land.
Source excerpt
Explore more
