Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 659

  • HCRG Care Limited v Persons Unknown

    02 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 794 (KB), KBD

    1. The Claimant is a national health and care organisation with approximately 4500 employees. It is commissioned by the NHS and local authorities in England and provides a broad range of healthcare and support services. The Defendant(s) are persons unknown that go by the name of “Medusa”. 2. On or about 26 January to 12 February 2025 the Defendant took data from the Claimant’s IT systems that was confidential to the Claimant and/or its employees, clients or associated third parties (“the Stolen data”). The Claimant was informed by the Defendant on 12 February 2025 that it had been the victim

  • TEST CASE Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Rosling King LLP (Tonstate Group Limited & Ors v Rosling King LLP)

    31 Jul 2024 [2024] EWHC 2005 (Ch), Ch D

    06 Jan 2025 [2024] UKUT 184 (TCC), Fake Court

    1. Ulster Metal Refiners Limited (“the Appellant” or “UM”) is a company based in Northern Ireland of which Mr Henry Donaldson is the director. The Appellant appealed to the FTT against a decision made by HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) to deny credit for input tax on the basis that it knew or should have known that the transactions in question were connected with fraud. On 12 August 2021, the FTT issued its decision (“the FTT Decision”) allowing the Appellant’s appeal in relation to around 90% of the VAT denied. 2. The Appellant’s appeal had been allocated as “complex” under

  • Yuk Ming Cheung v Office of Intercollegiate Services & Ors

    09 May 2025 [2025] EWHC 1109 (KB), KBD

    1. This judgment follows a hearing on 11 March 2025, when I heard the following four applications (set out in chronological order): a. The first, second and fourth defendants’ application for strike out/summary judgment, dated 25 September 2024; b. The claimant’s application, dated 25 October 2024, to vary my order made on 3 October 2024; c. The third and fifth defendants’ application for strike out/summary judgment, dated 28 October 2024; and d. The claimant’s application to adjourn the hearing on 11 March 2025, dated 10 March 2025, listed as a preliminary issue at the hearing. 2. The claimant did not

  • General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited v The State of Libya

    19 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 134, CA

    1. By a written agreement dated 5 May 2008 the respondent (“GDUK”) agreed to supply a Tactical Communications and Information System to the appellant (“Libya”) for the price of £84m (“the Contract”). The Contract was governed by the law of Switzerland. Clause 32 provided for arbitration of any dispute under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“the ICC”), further providing that the decision of the arbitration panel “shall be final, binding and wholly enforceable”. 2. It is common ground that clause 32 constituted a written agreement by Libya to submit disputes under the Contract to arbitration

  • Dhasarathan Seerangan v Secretary of State for the Home Department

    28 Mar 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 354, CA

    1. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings can be summarised for introductory purposes as follows: (1) The Appellant is an Indian national. He came to the UK on 3 October 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, on a student visa expiring on 30 January 2022. He did not leave at the expiry of his visa and accordingly became an overstayer. (2) On 14 November 2022, over nine months later, he requested from UK Visas and Immigration (“UKVI”) an “exceptional assurance” (an “EA”), relying on the Home Office’s “Coronavirus Exceptional Assurance policy” (“the EA Policy”). I will have to say

  • CWJ, R (on the application of) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anor

    14 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 306 (Admin), KBD

    (1) Introduction 1. The Claimant applies for judicial review of the decision of the First Defendant (“the Director”) of 28 June 2022 not to make an “exceptional case determination” (as defined in sub-paragraph 10(3) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”)) in relation to proceedings before a review panel (“the review panel”) in respect of the exclusion of her son (“XWJ”) from his school (“the school”). 2. The Claimant also applies for permission to amend her claim form and statement of grounds and, if permission to amend is granted, applies for judicial review of paragraph

  • Dale Vince OBE v Lord Bailey of Paddington

    11 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 287 (KB), KBD

    1. Dale Vince OBE is a well-known and successful businessman. He is the founder and director of the energy company, Ecotricity Group Limited, an environmental campaigner and a major donor to the Labour Party. By this libel action, Mr Vince sues Lord (Shaun) Bailey of Paddington, a Conservative member of the Greater London Assembly, the former Conservative candidate for Mayor of London and, since 2023, a Conservative peer. BACKGROUND 2. On 7 October 2023, Hamas terrorists entered Israel from Gaza. They committed murder, rape and kidnapping on a massive scale. Some 1,200 people were murdered and 240 others taken prisoner.

  • Alnoor v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

    15 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 922 (Admin), KBD

    1. This is a case about the lawfulness of a Negative Reasonable Grounds (“NRG”) Decision in the context of human trafficking, a species of modern slavery. The NRG Decision was taken for the Home Secretary by an IECA decision-maker (see §4 below) on 20 May 2024. There is an issue about whether the judicial review claim has become “academic” by reason of the grant to the Claimant of refugee status (see §26 below). There is a question about what “anxious scrutiny” means (§27 below). There is a question about whether ongoing anonymity is justified as necessary (§52 below). And there

  • ONB and Others

    06 Mar 2025 (Case C-575/23); EU:C:2025:141, ECJ

    EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws

  • Hammad Tazeem, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

    27 Mar 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 347, CA

    1. The issue on this appeal is whether the appellant was unlawfully detained at Heathrow airport as a result of his leave to enter being cancelled by immigration officers who concluded, unfairly and therefore unlawfully, that he had made false representations in order to obtain it. 2. Mr Tim Smith, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, decided that the appellant’s detention was a lawful exercise of the power to detain pending the completion of an examination into an arriving passenger’s circumstances. The appellant appeals from that decision. The facts 3. I can take the facts from the

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies