Log In
  • India
  • US
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Commentaries
    United Kingdom
    England and Wales
    Scotland
    Northern Ireland
    Ireland
Log In Sign Up UK Judgments
  • India
  • US

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries

establishing-solicitor-accountability-in-fraudulent-property-transfers:-insights-from-gibson-v-o& Case Commentaries

Coordinating Bankruptcy and Plenary Proceedings: Appointment‑Validity Must Be Decided First and in the Correct Procedural Vehicle — No Parallel Litigation Across Lists (Dunne [2025] IEHC 531)

Coordinating Bankruptcy and Plenary Proceedings: Appointment‑Validity Must Be Decided First and in the Correct Procedural Vehicle — No Parallel Litigation Across Lists (Dunne [2025] IEHC 531)

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Coordinating Bankruptcy and Plenary Proceedings: Appointment‑Validity Must Be Decided First and in the Correct Procedural Vehicle — No Parallel Litigation Across Lists (Dunne [2025] IEHC 531)...
"No removal while your own guidance promises a 30‑day NRM reconsideration": Secretary of State must preserve reconsideration opportunity offered under statutory guidance

"No removal while your own guidance promises a 30‑day NRM reconsideration": Secretary of State must preserve reconsideration opportunity offered under statutory guidance

Date: Oct 16, 2025
"No removal while your own guidance promises a 30‑day NRM reconsideration": Secretary of State must preserve reconsideration opportunity offered under statutory guidance Case: CTK, R (On the...
Converted Third‑State Sentences under the Transfer Convention Are Treated as “Imposed” in the Issuing State for EAW Purposes; “Heavier Penalty” Objections Confined Post‑Alchester II — Commentary on Minister for Justice v Koltun [2025] IEHC 549

Converted Third‑State Sentences under the Transfer Convention Are Treated as “Imposed” in the Issuing State for EAW Purposes; “Heavier Penalty” Objections Confined Post‑Alchester II — Commentary on Minister for Justice v Koltun [2025] IEHC 549

Date: Oct 15, 2025
Converted Third‑State Sentences under the Transfer Convention Are Treated as “Imposed” in the Issuing State for EAW Purposes; “Heavier Penalty” Objections Confined Post‑Alchester II — Commentary on...
Time‑Bar Defence as “Immunity” under Section 18 of the Extradition Act 1965: Attorney General v Drislane [2025] IEHC 550

Time‑Bar Defence as “Immunity” under Section 18 of the Extradition Act 1965: Attorney General v Drislane [2025] IEHC 550

Date: Oct 15, 2025
Time‑Bar Defence as “Immunity” under Section 18 of the Extradition Act 1965: Attorney General v Drislane [2025] IEHC 550 Introduction This High Court decision clarifies the meaning of “immunity by...
Section 45 compliance satisfied by representation at offender‑requested sentence‑amalgamation hearing; issue estoppel no bar where the new EAW relies on a different in‑absentia ground (D.3.2)

Section 45 compliance satisfied by representation at offender‑requested sentence‑amalgamation hearing; issue estoppel no bar where the new EAW relies on a different in‑absentia ground (D.3.2)

Date: Oct 15, 2025
Section 45 compliance satisfied by representation at offender‑requested sentence‑amalgamation hearing; issue estoppel no bar where the new EAW relies on a different in‑absentia ground (D.3.2)...
SC v BT: Ordinary Residence for Cohabitant Redress Requires Objective, On‑the‑Ground Ties; “Throughout” Does Not Mean Continuous Presence

SC v BT: Ordinary Residence for Cohabitant Redress Requires Objective, On‑the‑Ground Ties; “Throughout” Does Not Mean Continuous Presence

Date: Oct 14, 2025
SC v BT: Ordinary Residence for Cohabitant Redress Requires Objective, On‑the‑Ground Ties; “Throughout” Does Not Mean Continuous Presence Introduction This High Court decision (SC v BT, [2025] IEHC...
R v Andrews [2025] NICA 54: Consecutive Sentences Across Multiple Indictments and Parity of Attempted Rape with Rape — A Robust Totality Review in Multi‑Victim Online Sexual Offending

R v Andrews [2025] NICA 54: Consecutive Sentences Across Multiple Indictments and Parity of Attempted Rape with Rape — A Robust Totality Review in Multi‑Victim Online Sexual Offending

Date: Oct 11, 2025
R v Andrews [2025] NICA 54: Consecutive Sentences Across Multiple Indictments and Parity of Attempted Rape with Rape — A Robust Totality Review in Multi‑Victim Online Sexual Offending Reporting...
Mackison v PF, Paisley: Post‑conviction psychiatric developments as fresh evidence justifying the quashing of guilty‑plea convictions; no substitution of a section 51A verdict

Mackison v PF, Paisley: Post‑conviction psychiatric developments as fresh evidence justifying the quashing of guilty‑plea convictions; no substitution of a section 51A verdict

Date: Oct 10, 2025
Post‑conviction psychiatric developments as fresh evidence justifying the quashing of guilty‑plea convictions; no substitution of a section 51A verdict Case: Appeal following a reference from the...
Morris v NIHE: Court of Appeal reaffirms the primacy of statutory review and resource‑sensitive deference in challenges to temporary accommodation, and expects explicit leave decisions in rolled‑up hearings

Morris v NIHE: Court of Appeal reaffirms the primacy of statutory review and resource‑sensitive deference in challenges to temporary accommodation, and expects explicit leave decisions in rolled‑up hearings

Date: Oct 9, 2025
Morris v NIHE: Court of Appeal reaffirms the primacy of statutory review and resource‑sensitive deference in challenges to temporary accommodation, and expects explicit leave decisions in rolled‑up...
Section 55 Requires Child‑Best‑Interests Review of Immigration Rules: Court of Appeal Orders Home Secretary to Reassess Child Refugee Family Reunion Policy; Differential Treatment Recognised under Article 14

Section 55 Requires Child‑Best‑Interests Review of Immigration Rules: Court of Appeal Orders Home Secretary to Reassess Child Refugee Family Reunion Policy; Differential Treatment Recognised under Article 14

Date: Oct 9, 2025
Section 55 Requires Child‑Best‑Interests Review of Immigration Rules: Court of Appeal Orders Home Secretary to Reassess Child Refugee Family Reunion Policy; Differential Treatment Recognised under...
Public Protection under s.60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007: Diminished Weight to Livelihood Rights Where the Practitioner Does Not Practise in Ireland

Public Protection under s.60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007: Diminished Weight to Livelihood Rights Where the Practitioner Does Not Practise in Ireland

Date: Oct 9, 2025
Public Protection under s.60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007: Diminished Weight to Livelihood Rights Where the Practitioner Does Not Practise in Ireland Introduction This commentary examines...
No “Justificationism” and the Reach of Courtroom Immunity: Advocate submissions at bail and police preparatory acts attract absolute immunity, not outflanked by HRA/DPA claims — Chief Constable of Sussex Police & CPS v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230

No “Justificationism” and the Reach of Courtroom Immunity: Advocate submissions at bail and police preparatory acts attract absolute immunity, not outflanked by HRA/DPA claims — Chief Constable of Sussex Police & CPS v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230

Date: Oct 9, 2025
No “Justificationism” and the Reach of Courtroom Immunity: Advocate submissions at bail and police preparatory acts attract absolute immunity, not outflanked by HRA/DPA claims — Chief Constable of...
Discoverability under s.32(1)(c) can be triggered by a CJEU tipping point — and even an Advocate General’s Opinion: BAT Industries v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2025] EWCA Civ 1271

Discoverability under s.32(1)(c) can be triggered by a CJEU tipping point — and even an Advocate General’s Opinion: BAT Industries v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2025] EWCA Civ 1271

Date: Oct 9, 2025
Discoverability under s.32(1)(c) can be triggered by a CJEU tipping point — and even an Advocate General’s Opinion: BAT Industries v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2025] EWCA Civ 1271 Introduction...
One Test, Not Two: Court of Appeal clarifies redactions in FRAND judgments and protects both lump‑sum and per‑unit pricing data

One Test, Not Two: Court of Appeal clarifies redactions in FRAND judgments and protects both lump‑sum and per‑unit pricing data

Date: Oct 8, 2025
One Test, Not Two: Court of Appeal clarifies redactions in FRAND judgments and protects both lump‑sum and per‑unit pricing data Introduction In InterDigital Inc & Ors, In the Matter Of (Re Optis...
Certification of Skilled Persons under the 2019 Rules: Technical Pleadings and “Conspicuity” Evidence Do Not Justify a Second Liability Expert Without Prior Inquiry

Certification of Skilled Persons under the 2019 Rules: Technical Pleadings and “Conspicuity” Evidence Do Not Justify a Second Liability Expert Without Prior Inquiry

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Certification of Skilled Persons under the 2019 Rules: Technical Pleadings and “Conspicuity” Evidence Do Not Justify a Second Liability Expert Without Prior Inquiry Introduction This commentary...
Circumstantial Proof of Lure Type under Angling Bye-Law 635: Production of the Lure Not Required

Circumstantial Proof of Lure Type under Angling Bye-Law 635: Production of the Lure Not Required

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Circumstantial Proof of Lure Type under Angling Bye-Law 635: Production of the Lure Not Required Introduction This commentary examines Inland Fisheries Ireland v Connors [2025] IEHC 530, a High Court...
“Decision” Exists Only on Service: Court of Appeal Holds JR Time Runs from Giving of s.4 Notice; Email Service Presumption May Be Rebutted on Evidence (Dhandapani v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1244)

“Decision” Exists Only on Service: Court of Appeal Holds JR Time Runs from Giving of s.4 Notice; Email Service Presumption May Be Rebutted on Evidence (Dhandapani v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1244)

Date: Oct 8, 2025
“Decision” Exists Only on Service: JR Time Runs from Giving of s.4 Notice; Email Service Presumption May Be Rebutted on Evidence Case: Dhandapani, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for...
Robertson v Google LLC: CPR 6.34 permission is prospective; CPR 7.6(3) is the exclusive route for late service out of the jurisdiction; no relief from sanctions and no AoS duty absent valid service

Robertson v Google LLC: CPR 6.34 permission is prospective; CPR 7.6(3) is the exclusive route for late service out of the jurisdiction; no relief from sanctions and no AoS duty absent valid service

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Robertson v Google LLC: CPR 6.34 permission is prospective; CPR 7.6(3) is the exclusive route for late service out of the jurisdiction; no relief from sanctions and no AoS duty absent valid service...
Newton Hearings Are Part of a Unitary Criminal Trial: High Court refuses mid‑trial judicial review and affirms power to order a de novo Newton hearing following late disclosure

Newton Hearings Are Part of a Unitary Criminal Trial: High Court refuses mid‑trial judicial review and affirms power to order a de novo Newton hearing following late disclosure

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Newton Hearings Are Part of a Unitary Criminal Trial: High Court refuses mid‑trial judicial review and affirms power to order a de novo Newton hearing following late disclosure Introduction In Nevin...
Adverse Inferences from Witness Silence in Civil Trials and Valuing PTSD Without Specific Guidelines: Commentary on Lynch v Reynolds & Ors [2025] IEHC 527

Adverse Inferences from Witness Silence in Civil Trials and Valuing PTSD Without Specific Guidelines: Commentary on Lynch v Reynolds & Ors [2025] IEHC 527

Date: Oct 7, 2025
Adverse Inferences from Witness Silence in Civil Trials and Valuing PTSD Without Specific Guidelines: Commentary on Lynch v Reynolds & Ors [2025] IEHC 527 Court: High Court of Ireland (O’Connor J)...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert

We use cookies to improve your experience

You can accept all cookies or turn off analytical ones.