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 Tribunal struck out Debbie Deboo’s section 166 DPA 2018 application, holding the Commissioner had already given an outcome and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to comply with directions to clarify jurisdictional grounds and did not respond, justifying strike out under Rule 8(2)(a).
Source excerpt
The court is satisfied that the jurisdictional gateways under Part 26A Companies Act 2006 are met, the proposed class constitution for meetings is appropriate, adequate notice has been given, and there are no discernible roadblocks or futility in proceeding. Three class meetings (Growler, Noteholders, Shareholders) are ordered to be convened to consider the restructuring plan.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the Appellant’s review request was made outside the statutory 28-day period. Statutory presumptions of service and receipt were not rebutted by cogent evidence. The Tribunal cannot consider the merits, and the appeal must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The High Court held the children had become habitually resident in Kenya by mid-August 2025, so there was no wrongful retention and the mother’s return application failed.
As at the date of issue of the father's Children Act proceedings (29 July 2025), MP was habitually resident in Country B. The court found that MP's presence in England was always contingent on not exceeding 120 days per year due to tax residency, that his integration and lived experience in Country B (especially with his mother) outweighed the factors supporting habitual residence in England, and that recent experiences and connections in Country B were more immediate and substantial. Accordingly, the courts of Country B have primary jurisdiction over matters of parental responsibility for MP…
Source excerpt
Security for costs was ordered because the claimant is resident abroad, there is a real risk of non-enforcement of costs orders, the merits do not demonstrate a high probability of success, and there is insufficient evidence that the claim would be stifled by the order.
Source excerpt
The court found a good arguable case that an oral contract exists and that England is the appropriate forum, but the tort claims do not meet the serious issue to be tried threshold. The Permission Order is upheld for the contract claim but varied to exclude tort claims. No deliberate failure in full and frank disclosure was found, so the Permission Order is not set aside in full.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the complaint concerns processing under the Data Protection Act 1998, not the DPA 2018 or UK GDPR, and section 166 DPA 2018 does not confer jurisdiction for such complaints. Even if jurisdiction existed, the Information Commissioner provided an outcome to the complaint and complied with all procedural requirements, leaving no further appropriate steps to be ordered. The Tribunal cannot review the merits or substantive outcome of the complaint.
Source excerpt
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the Information Commissioner's failure to issue a decision notice; therefore, the appeal must be struck out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
