Daily Case Law
Monday, July 27, 2026 · 12 decisions worth your morning coffee
United Kingdom

Smithers v Persons Unknown — High Court grants summary judgment, ordering return of identifiable Bitcoin and compensatory damages for fungible cryptoassets in fraud case

High Court (Commercial Court) · 2026-07-24civil procedure

Background: Nancy Carol Smithers and Angelina Kostyantynivna Usanova, the Claimants, were victims of a sophisticated cryptoasset fraud, losing approximately £10.5 million. They were induced to invest with a purported cryptoasset trading business, Raliplen (later Servelius), by individuals who presented themselves as expert traders. The fraud involved transferring significant sums in both fiat currency and various cryptoassets,…

Held: Mr. Justice Bright granted summary judgment in favour of the Claimants, Nancy Carol Smithers and Angelina Kostyantynivna Usanova, against the non-responding "Persons Unknown" defendants in the second group (the recipients of the cryptoassets). The court was satisfied that the Claimants had a strong claim, primarily in deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation), and that the alternative methods of service on these defendants were…

Read the full analysis →

Israel

IEC v. Ramat Negev Energy — Supreme Court Permits Joinder of Third-Party Suppliers in Class Action

Supreme Court of Israel · 2026-07-26civil procedure

Background: A request to certify a class action was filed against the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC), alleging it was negligent in its former capacity as Israel's electricity "System Administrator." The suit claimed that the IEC failed to prevent private power suppliers from systematically submitting fraudulent consumption plans to manipulate the market and inflate their profits. These…

Held: The Supreme Court, in a judgment penned by Justice Ruth Ronen, reversed the District Court's decision and granted the IEC permission to file the third-party notices. The Court held that the lower court had applied an overly stringent evidentiary standard at this preliminary stage of the litigation. While a defendant must show a "proper basis" for a third party's liability,…

Read the full analysis →

Michigan

People v. Jennings — Michigan Supreme Court broadened when prosecutorial misconduct can bar retrial and ordered reconsideration

Michigan Supreme Court · 2026-07-24civil procedure

Background: Police stopped a car driven by Devante Kyran Jennings after a witness linked a similar vehicle to a shooting outside an apartment building. Officers found a loaded handgun in the glovebox, and its ammunition matched shell casings recovered at the scene. During an interview, Jennings admitted that he had been at the apartment building and…

Held: The Michigan Supreme Court held that Kennedy’s federal rule—which bars retrial following a defense-requested mistrial only when the prosecutor intended to goad the defendant into seeking one—does not provide the protection required by Article 1, § 15 of the Michigan Constitution. The Court reasoned that Kennedy was announced after ratification of the 1963 Constitution and was too narrow to protect…

Read the full analysis →

Florida

Roof — Florida appellate court affirmed a circuit court decision

Florida First District Court of Appeal · 2026-07-24civil procedure

Background: This case came before the Florida First District Court of Appeal as an appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellant, Ian Neil Roof, challenged a decision made by the lower court, where Judge John L. Miller presided. The specific details of the original case from Escambia County are not provided in this…

Held: The Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision, meaning the judgment was rendered by the court as a whole rather than a single authoring judge. The court's holding was concise: "AFFIRMED." This indicates that the appellate panel found no reversible error in the prior ruling of the Circuit Court for Escambia County and upheld its decision.…

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

Netomnia v MJ Quinn — Court rules contractor’s payment application invalid for failing to include contractually required details

High Court (Technology and Construction Court) · 2026-07-24breach of contractcivil procedure

Background: Netomnia Limited, a fibre-optic network operator, engaged MJ Quinn Integrated Services Limited as a contractor to build out its UK network under a Master Services Agreement (MSA) signed in 2021. The MSA included a framework for interim payments, allowing MJ Quinn to submit an "Application for Payment" (AFP) for work completed. The contract specified that…

Held: The High Court, Mr. Justice Eyre presiding, ruled in favour of Netomnia, declaring that the Application for Payment was invalid. The court found that MJ Quinn had failed to comply with two critical requirements under clause 6.5 of the MSA. First, the application violated clause 6.5.4, which required it to be "accompanied by such documentation and other information... as may…

Read the full analysis →

Israel

Al-Sartaz — Dismissed a petition seeking the removal of structures and intervention against alleged harassment without reaching the merits, citing mootness, alternative remedies, and insufficient factual basis

Supreme Court of Israel · 2026-07-26constitutional

Background: The petitioners, members of the Al-Sartaz family, claimed ownership of an agricultural farm of approximately 700 dunams, with an additional 154 dunams, located in the Gush Etzion area near the settlement of Alon Shvut. They alleged that since April 2024, five unauthorized caravans were gradually placed on their additional land. Furthermore, they contended that for…

Held: The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition outright, agreeing with the respondents that it should be rejected on threshold grounds without delving into the merits of the petitioners' claims. Regarding the request for the removal of the caravans, the Court found the issue moot because Respondents 1-4 had already initiated enforcement actions and issued demolition orders against these structures under…

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

Fuschillo v. Johnson & Johnson (No. 2) — UK High Court Sets Two-Stage Trial for Talc Cancer Claims and Rejects Mass Strike-Out

High Court (King's Bench Division) · 2026-07-24civil procedurepersonal injury tort

Background: Thousands of claimants have brought a group action in the United Kingdom against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its affiliates. They allege that their use of the company's talc-based Baby Powder, which they claim was contaminated with asbestos and other harmful substances, caused them to develop malignant mesothelioma or ovarian cancer. The claims, proceeding under…

Held: Mrs Justice Hill DBE denied the defendants' application to strike out the claims of the numerous individuals who no longer qualified for the GLO. While describing the situation as "deeply lamentable," the court found that the claimants' solicitors had not committed an abuse of process. Rather than imposing the "draconian remedy" of a strike-out, which could strip the claimants of…

Read the full analysis →

Israel

Karshan v. IDF Commander — Israeli Supreme Court upholds demolition order for fence built near West Bank security barrier

Supreme Court of Israel · 2026-07-26constitutional

Background: The petitioner, Salman Karshan, constructed a concrete fence around his property in the West Bank, located approximately 278 meters from the security barrier. The construction was done without a building permit in an area governed by a military order that prohibits construction near the barrier (the "Seam Zone"). The petitioner claimed he was unaware a…

Held: The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, denied the petition, upholding the Military Commander's decision. The Court found no grounds to intervene. It began by noting that the fence was built illegally, without a permit, in violation of Jordanian planning law which remains in effect in the area. The application for a permit was only filed retroactively,…

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

Lodhia v Twelve Trees — High Court imposed indemnity costs and a three-year civil restraint order

High Court (King's Bench Division) · 2026-07-24breach of contractcivil procedure

Background: Amar Lodhia brought defamation and malicious-falsehood claims arising from a newsletter circulated to leaseholders at the Maltings residential estate in East London. The newsletter criticised his litigation and other activities concerning the estate. After narrowing his case and making several applications to postpone or stay proceedings, Lodhia discontinued the claim.

Held: Mr Justice Linden ordered Lodhia to pay the costs of the 6 May 2026 hearing and directed that the defendants’ costs of the proceedings be assessed on the indemnity basis because of Lodhia’s unreasonable conduct. The court refused the second defendant’s application to set off an £840 costs liability owed to Lodhia in separate proceedings against Lodhia’s £3,600 interim costs…

Read the full analysis →

Israel

Water Authority v. Jisr az-Zarqa Local Council — Supreme Court dismissed the council’s civil suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

Supreme Court of Israel · 2026-07-26civil procedureconstitutional

Background: Under Israel’s water-sector reform, local authorities that had not established water and sewerage corporations paid Mekorot amounts designated for rehabilitating, renewing, and developing water infrastructure. Jisr az-Zarqa Local Council transferred responsibility for its water and sewerage system to Palgey Motzkin Ltd. in 2021 and subsequently requested release of rehabilitation-fund amounts accumulated from payments made between…

Held: Justice Ruth Ronnen treated the application for leave to appeal as an appeal, granted it, and held that the civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although a civil court ordinarily may decide administrative questions incidentally when adjudicating a genuinely civil remedy, a claimant cannot obtain civil jurisdiction merely by attaching financial consequences to what is substantively a direct challenge to administrative…

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

Faraj v Ahmad — Court of Appeal orders retrial of all financial remedy issues due to procedural unfairness

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) · 2026-07-24civil procedurefamily law

Background: The case involved complex financial remedy proceedings following the divorce of Meerna Ali Ghuloom Faraj (the wife) and Sohail Sultan Ahmad (the husband), with IIB Group Holdings (IIB), an investment company majority-owned by the husband, also as a party. The husband appealed a £6m lump sum payment order to the wife, claiming the first-instance judge…

Held: The Court of Appeal (Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Baker, and Lord Justice Fraser) unanimously allowed all three appeals lodged by the husband, the wife, and IIB Group Holdings. The Court identified significant procedural unfairness in the first-instance trial, specifically regarding the judge's crucial finding that the husband had a secret bank account containing £16m at his disposal. This finding,…

Read the full analysis →

Israel

HaCarmeli v. Insolvency Comm’r — Supreme Court denies leave to appeal refusal to waive court fees and bond

Supreme Court of Israel · 2026-07-26civil procedureinsolvency

Background: The petitioner, Gavriel HaCarmeli, sought leave to appeal from the Israeli Supreme Court after the Jerusalem District Court denied his requests for an exemption from paying court fees and posting a security bond. The lower court had also rejected his alternative request to make the payments in installments. Mr. HaCarmeli was appealing decisions made in…

Held: The Supreme Court, in a decision by Justice David Mintz, denied the motion for leave to appeal. The Court began by reiterating the high threshold for appellate intervention in lower court decisions regarding fees and bonds, stating it will only do so in "exceptional cases." The Court found that this case did not meet that standard.

Read the full analysis →

Want this in your inbox every morning, filtered to your jurisdictions?
Subscribe free at dailycaselaw.com →
Full analyses at Case Law Wire. Summaries are AI-generated and are not legal advice.