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 dismissed Advinia Care Homes Limited’s appeal and confirmed the CQC’s decision to vary registration conditions for Gorton Parks Care Home.
The Court of Appeal held that FSMA section 26 recovery rights do not extend to successors in title and allowed the appeal. It also held the new point should not have been admitted.
The tribunal dismissed Centric Care Solutions Ltd’s appeal and confirmed cancellation of its CQC registration, holding the provider had not carried on regulated activities for 12 months.
The Tribunal found serious, multiple, and repeated breaches of fundamental standards under the 2014 Regulations, including inadequate governance, unsafe care, lack of person-centred care, and failure to safeguard service users. Improvements were insufficient, not embedded, and leadership lacked competence. The risk to current and future service users was high, and no conditions could reasonably address the risk. The Respondent's decisions to vary registration and remove the registered manager were justified, necessary, and proportionate.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found that the appellant was in breach of a condition of registration (no registered manager) and breached Regulations 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 19 of the 2014 Regulations. These breaches, including specific findings that patients 2, 3, 5, 6, and 21 were placed at risk of harm, and the appellant's history of non-compliance, gave reasonable cause to believe that unless the suspension was extended, patients would or may be exposed to the risk of harm. The extension of suspension was therefore proportionate and necessary.
Source excerpt
The defendant did not benefit from the £60,000 paid into his account, did not actively collude or participate in the bond arrangement, and was not enriched at the claimant's expense; no trust or restitutionary claim lies against him.
Source excerpt
The defendants' statutory right to recover property transferred under an unenforceable sale and rent back agreement binds successors in title and constitutes a mere equity protected by actual occupation under the Land Registration Act; the claimant did not carry on regulated activities by way of business, but the right to recover property is not defeated by transfer to a third party.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal dismissed E. A. K. Group Ltd’s reference against the FCA’s refusal to authorise Limited Permission credit activities, finding the decision was reasonably open to the regulator.
The High Court dismissed an appeal over an alleged unlawful sale and rent back arrangement and rejected an alternative claim to retain £100,000 of equity.
Odhavji v Tighe & Ors [2025] EWHC 372 (Ch) (24 February 2025)
High Court appeal over an alleged sale-and-rent-back arrangement under FSMA was dismissed. The court found the appellant had not proved the necessary arrangement with the first respondent.
Explore more
