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 dismissed a bankruptcy appeal, holding that the appellants had delayed proceedings and had not shown a sufficient prospect of paying the guarantee debt in time.
Nardelli & Anor v Desiman Ltd [2026] EWHC 366 (Ch) (24 February 2026)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against bankruptcy orders made on a guarantee debt, holding the judge was entitled to proceed despite claimed future repayment.
PEY Capital Pte Ltd did not have permission to make non-consequential amendments to its defence under the April Order, and its application to withdraw admissions fails due to lack of proper explanation and absence of realistic prospects of success for the new defence. Unless order for disclosure is justified against State Aviation Company Limited due to persistent non-compliance, with sanction of being debarred from defending if disclosure is not provided by 31 January 2026. Alternative service against State Aviation is permitted given inability to effect service by conventional means.
Source excerpt
Wilmington Trust SP Services (Dublin) Ltd & Ors v State Aviation Company Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3566 (Comm) (19 December 2025)
The High Court refused PEY Capital permission to run non-consequential amendments and withdraw admissions in a helicopter lease guarantee dispute, and made disclosure orders against State Aviation.
The tribunal committed a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding the damages claim on the basis of discharge of liability under clause 6.3, an issue not raised in the arbitration, depriving the claimant of a fair opportunity to address it. The tribunal’s legal construction of clauses 2.1 and 6.3 as discharging liability was obviously wrong; such clauses do not discharge accrued liability for breach absent clear and express language.
Source excerpt
The claim failed because no implied agreement to extend the SPA dates was established, no common understanding existed to found estoppel by convention, and detrimental reliance was insufficient to found estoppel by representation or promissory estoppel. Payments and assurances did not amount to contractual acknowledgment. The defendant was not estopped from denying liability for the additional purchase price under clause 3.1(a).
Source excerpt
The appellant's application to set aside the statutory demands was properly dismissed due to lack of good reason for non-attendance, lack of promptness, and insufficient merits; clause 4.4 of the share purchase agreement created a guarantee liability for a liquidated debt sufficient to support the bankruptcy petition; set-off did not extinguish the liability as the indemnity was not given by the petitioners; no procedural irregularity or injustice occurred in hearing the petition after the application; costs were properly ordered as an expense of the bankruptcy.
Source excerpt
Martin v MclAren Construction Ltd [2025] EWHC 406 (Ch) (25 February 2025)
The High Court rejected implied-term and conspiracy defences to a £7.9 million insolvency claim, dismissed statutory demand challenges, and ordered Martin Dawn plc wound up.
The guarantee is a contract of suretyship, not a demand guarantee, but does not require adjudication of UOG's liability before Mr Bashar's obligation arises. UOG's admissions in the payment agreement are contractually binding and conclusively determine liability, binding Mr Bashar as guarantor. The payment date under the new spot contract satisfies section 49(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, entitling CEE to claim the price despite retention of title. CEE's allocation of payments was rational and consistent with the agreement. Defences raised by UOG and Mr Bashar have no realistic prospect of suc…
Source excerpt
Larkfleet Ltd v Armstrong Energy Ltd [2025] EWHC 261 (Comm) (10 February 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment for Armstrong Energy on Larkfleet’s negligence claim, but allowed the separate Thornborough claim to proceed.
Explore more
