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 Commercial Court refused a stay of proceedings brought on a non-exclusive English jurisdiction clause, despite parallel Liberian proceedings and a related arbitration.
Timokhin v Timokhina [2026] EWHC 1194 (KB) (19 May 2026)
The High Court refused stays of enforcement, upheld Part 36 costs consequences, and awarded interest and a payment on account after enforcing Russian judgments.
The High Court refused a stay of enforcement pending appeal or Russian bankruptcy and made Part 36 costs and interest orders after the claimant won recognition and enforcement.
Timokhin v Timokhina [2026] EWHC 439 (KB) (27 February 2026)
High Court recognition and enforcement case concerning two Russian judgments arising from a post-nuptial agreement dispute between former spouses.
High Court Part 8 claim to recognise and enforce Russian judgments about a post-nuptial agreement. Public policy, abuse of process, and natural justice objections failed.
Expert evidence on Argentinian law is relevant and admissible for the jurisdiction challenge, as it will assist the court in characterising the acts as sovereign or commercial and in addressing public policy and state immunity objections. Bifurcation is refused as all issues can be efficiently dealt with in the scheduled hearing without duplication of costs or time.
Source excerpt
The Privy Council held that the respondent did not submit to the Pakistan court’s jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, rejecting the Geoprosco rule in Cayman law.
Beijing Songxianghu Architectural Decoration Engineering Co. Ltd v Kam [2025] EWHC 3068 (Comm) (14 November 2025)
The High Court refused to defer freezing-order asset disclosure pending a Hong Kong anti-suit injunction application, and also refused disclosure by witness statement instead of affidavit.
The County Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim brought at common law on a foreign judgment, as such a claim is not founded on contract or tort within the meaning of section 15(1) of the County Courts Act 1984. The Qatari court did not have jurisdiction over the Defendant for the purposes of English law, as he was not present in Qatar at the time proceedings were instituted, nor was he a fugitive. The claim is struck out rather than transferred, as the Claimant should have known of the jurisdictional defect and the underlying claim lacks merit.
Source excerpt
The court held that while it could not review the substance of the German Deed, there had been a sufficient change of circumstances—particularly the wife’s inability to work and the family’s relocation to London—to justify a substantial variation of the maintenance and housing provision. The wife’s needs, including housing for life and maintenance, must be met on a needs basis, but no sharing claim or capitalised maintenance was appropriate given the history, delay, and the binding nature of the German Deed. The court ordered a capitalised housing fund, ongoing maintenance for the wife and ch…
Source excerpt
Explore more
