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
Khan & Anor v Nistor & Anor [2026] EWCC 5 (06 February 2026)
A road traffic personal injury claim was dismissed after the judge found the first claimant failed to prove the collision on the balance of probabilities.
SRN v Nekiwala & Anor [2026] EWHC 16 (KB) (09 January 2026)
The High Court granted a further interim payment in a serious road traffic injury claim, awarding £60,000 after a cautious assessment of damages and contributory negligence.
HDL v Butt & Anor [2025] EWHC 3410 (KB) (31 December 2025)
The High Court entered judgment for the claimant by consent but refused a further £225,000 interim payment because live causation disputes created an overpayment risk.
The High Court dismissed Ms Yaman’s appeal, holding that the trial judge’s interventions and conduct did not show apparent bias or procedural unfairness.
Yaman v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3091 (KB) (24 November 2025)
High Court appeal dismissed after finding no apparent bias or procedural unfairness in the trial judge’s conduct or interventions during a fraud-related civil trial.
The High Court dismissed a child road-traffic negligence claim after finding the driver was not negligent and that the child emerged suddenly from behind parked cars.
Trial on liability arising from a road collision. The court dismissed the claim against the driver but held the employer liable, with 35% contributory negligence.
The claimant was entitled to recover credit hire charges for 21 days at the credit hire rate, as she was impecunious and acted reasonably based on information provided; defendant failed to prove failure to mitigate loss.
Source excerpt
The Respondent was debarred from relying on impecuniosity for rate of hire but not for duration; the Recorder was entitled to accept the Respondent's evidence that he could not afford to buy a replacement vehicle until the PAV was paid, and the award for hire and storage costs was not plainly wrong or perverse.
Source excerpt
Explore more
