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
There is no necessity to depart from the principle of open justice as the Norwich Pharmacal application does not require reference to private family law matters, and any irrelevant or inappropriate reference will be prevented by the court.
Source excerpt
Administrative Court appeal dismissed against a teacher prohibition order, with the court upholding hearsay-based findings, dishonesty, and a two-year review period.
Permission for judicial review is refused because the claim has become academic, there is sufficient High Court authority on the issue, and no exceptional public interest justifies proceeding; CPR 32.13 confers an automatic right of inspection during trial, but the Deputy District Judge erred in requiring a formal application and failing to consider alternatives; however, a declaration would serve no practical purpose.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal set aside an order requiring disclosure of Court of Protection position statements to a non-party observer, holding the order was unjustified and disproportionate.
Gardner (Deceased) (Court of Protection: Disclosure of Position Statements), Re [2026] EWCA Civ 640 (21 May 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that Court of Protection position statements are not automatically available to non-party observers and set aside an order for disclosure.
The tribunal refused a FOIA appeal seeking a police misconduct hearing bundle and transcript, holding section 31 applied and the public interest favoured withholding.
The High Court allowed publication of care judgments, anonymising only the child RR and her father, and varied the Transparency Order accordingly.
Blackpool Borough Council v RR & Ors [2026] EWHC 1100 (Fam) (14 May 2026)
The court ruled on publication and anonymisation in care proceedings, ordering publication of the judgments with only RR and her father anonymised.
Permission to appeal was refused as the grounds did not meet the threshold of real prospect of success or compelling reason. A reporting restriction order was granted only in respect of specific findings in the judgment that posed a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in pending criminal proceedings, but not for the entire judgment, balancing open justice against the risk of prejudice.
Source excerpt
The County Court refused the claimant’s late application for anonymity, holding that open justice prevailed and the evidence did not justify restricting publication.
Explore more
