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
Williams v Wilkinson [2026] EWHC 1088 (KB) (08 May 2026)
The High Court refused a very late amendment in a clinical negligence claim, finding the new causation case uncertain, overdue, and likely to derail trial.
The application to amend was made fatally late and would prejudice the trial; the proposed amendments lack merit and do not disclose reasonable grounds for defence; the SLAPP argument is hopeless as the claimants' conduct does not meet the statutory criteria.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld a stay on Nigeria’s third party costs application until detailed assessment of costs is completed, finding the case management decision was justified.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 25 (23 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Nigeria’s appeal against a stay of its third-party costs application, holding the judge’s case management decision was justified and sufficiently reasoned.
The application to amend was dismissed because it was a 'very late' amendment with no good explanation, would cause substantial prejudice to the respondents, jeopardise the trial date, lacked clarity and particularity, and any prejudice to the applicant was self-inflicted. The overriding objective and proportionality considerations weighed heavily against granting permission.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal should have treated the appellant’s email as a request to reinstate withdrawn proceedings under rule 22(5).
The matters are interrelated and should be resolved together. There is good reason to depart from the three-month rule and delay delivery of the reserved judgment to allow hearing of the Howden Brazil application and deliver a combined holistic judgment, best achieving the overriding objective and minimizing prejudice and resource waste.
Source excerpt
Ward v Rai (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB) (03 July 2025)
Appeal over detailed assessment costs allowed after the court held the judge had erred in principle by permitting a late, more specific Points of Dispute schedule.
Although the claimant’s costs budget was overly ambitious and verged on being unrealistic, the claimant achieved 60% of the amount sought and obtained approval for costs 18% above the defendant’s offer. Therefore, the appropriate order is 'costs in the case', but the court retains discretion to depart from this in future if budgets are found to be unrealistic.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal refused the Information Commissioner permission to appeal against a case management direction requiring the Commissioner to prepare the open bundle.
Explore more
