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 claimants failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities due to numerous inconsistencies, poor witness performance, and lack of corroborative evidence. The evidence did not meet the substantial burden required to prove fraud or a staged accident.
Source excerpt
Lynch v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 657 (KB) (20 March 2026)
Clinical negligence damages judgment for delayed diagnosis of hip dysplasia, assessing future care, accommodation, earnings, psychiatric injury, and provisional damages.
High Court damages assessment in an admitted clinical negligence claim over delayed diagnosis of hip dysplasia, with future care and revision surgery issues.
The Privy Council dismissed Tyson Strachan’s appeal, upholding rejection of his negligence claim and his claim that he was unfairly disengaged from employment.
Choksi v Government of India & Ors [2026] EWHC 217 (KB) (06 February 2026)
The High Court ordered security for costs against an overseas claimant in a personal injury and conspiracy claim, finding real enforcement risks and no sufficient stifling evidence.
The EAT dismissed Kuwait’s appeal on state immunity. It held that prior EAT rulings on section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 should be followed, and that psychiatric injury is included.
COL v The United Arab Emirates [2026] EWHC 86 (KB) (22 January 2026)
The High Court assessed damages for a modern slavery claim, awarding sums for false imprisonment, psychiatric injury, exemplary damages, unpaid wages, and treatment costs.
The tribunal erred in failing to properly consider findings of breaches of the ACAS Code, in its approach to causation and mitigation of loss for Ms B, and in calculating loss of earnings based on an annual rather than quarterly bonus. The tribunal's approach to Mr A's loss period was unclear. These issues require remission for fresh consideration by a differently constituted tribunal.
Source excerpt
The claim was statute-barred as the claimant had knowledge of his injury by August 2012, but it was equitable to disapply the limitation period under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The claimant established, on the balance of probabilities, that he suffers from HAVS caused by excessive exposure to vibration due to the defendant's breach of duty. Damages were awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and future care.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal is granted on the recklessness point because the judge's reasoning lacks clarity and symmetry between the legal framework and conclusion, warranting determination by the full court.
Source excerpt
Explore more
