Log In
  • US
  • UK & Ireland
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)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • UK & Ireland

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

material-prejudice-as-the-touchstone-of-procedural-fairness Case Commentaries

Late Quantum-Phase Amendments and Litigation Holds: The Court of Appeal’s Four‑Stage Prejudice Analysis in ENRC v Dechert & SFO

Late Quantum-Phase Amendments and Litigation Holds: The Court of Appeal’s Four‑Stage Prejudice Analysis in ENRC v Dechert & SFO

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Late Quantum-Phase Amendments and Litigation Holds: The Court of Appeal’s Four‑Stage Prejudice Analysis in ENRC v Dechert & SFO Introduction This commentary examines the Court of Appeal’s judgment in...
Bradley v Abacus: Court of Appeal confines s.27A review to the “no reasonable landlord” test and clarifies the two‑stage allocation of service charge items

Bradley v Abacus: Court of Appeal confines s.27A review to the “no reasonable landlord” test and clarifies the two‑stage allocation of service charge items

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Bradley v Abacus: Court of Appeal confines s.27A review to the “no reasonable landlord” test and clarifies the two‑stage allocation of service charge items Introduction This Court of Appeal decision...
Blake & Ors v Fox: Court of Appeal reasserts Dingle for serious-harm causation, adopts “material contribution” for specific losses, and clarifies mitigation and media republication in libel

Blake & Ors v Fox: Court of Appeal reasserts Dingle for serious-harm causation, adopts “material contribution” for specific losses, and clarifies mitigation and media republication in libel

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Blake & Ors v Fox: Court of Appeal reasserts Dingle for serious-harm causation, adopts “material contribution” for specific losses, and clarifies mitigation and media republication in libel...
Ammori v SSHD: Deproscription/POAC is not an alternative to judicial review of an initial proscription; and respondents must meet CPR 52.8’s seven‑day limit when seeking permission to appeal refused JR grounds

Ammori v SSHD: Deproscription/POAC is not an alternative to judicial review of an initial proscription; and respondents must meet CPR 52.8’s seven‑day limit when seeking permission to appeal refused JR grounds

Date: Oct 22, 2025
New Principle: Initial Proscription Orders Are Directly Reviewable in the Administrative Court; Deproscription/POAC is not an available or adequate alternative remedy. CPR 52.8’s seven‑day time limit...
Balgova: Non‑standard Art. 2(2) EAW Categories Trigger a Correspondence Assessment; Caregiver Hardship Alone Insufficient to Defeat Surrender under Article 8

Balgova: Non‑standard Art. 2(2) EAW Categories Trigger a Correspondence Assessment; Caregiver Hardship Alone Insufficient to Defeat Surrender under Article 8

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Balgova: Non‑standard Art. 2(2) EAW Categories Trigger a Correspondence Assessment; Caregiver Hardship Alone Insufficient to Defeat Surrender under Article 8 Introduction This High Court decision in...
Clarke v Pepper Finance (IEHC 564, 2025): Absence of Vehicular Access Is Not “Landlock”; Receivers Must Market “Warts and All,” and Borrowers’ Undertakings in Investment Property Cases Will Be Strictly Scrutinised

Clarke v Pepper Finance (IEHC 564, 2025): Absence of Vehicular Access Is Not “Landlock”; Receivers Must Market “Warts and All,” and Borrowers’ Undertakings in Investment Property Cases Will Be Strictly Scrutinised

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Clarke v Pepper Finance (IEHC 564, 2025): Absence of Vehicular Access Is Not “Landlock”; Receivers Must Market “Warts and All,” and Borrowers’ Undertakings in Investment Property Cases Will Be...
CityJet DAC: Clarifying the Best Interests of Creditors Test, Valuation Timing, and Examiner’s Onus in Examinership Confirmations

CityJet DAC: Clarifying the Best Interests of Creditors Test, Valuation Timing, and Examiner’s Onus in Examinership Confirmations

Date: Oct 22, 2025
CityJet DAC: Clarifying the Best Interests of Creditors Test, Valuation Timing, and Examiner’s Onus in Examinership Confirmations Introduction In CityJet Designated Activity Company [2025] IEHC 562,...
Special circumstances as a gateway to late IPAT appeals: High Court affirms cumulative test and strict formality for asylum appeals (GB v IPAT [2025] IEHC 543)

Special circumstances as a gateway to late IPAT appeals: High Court affirms cumulative test and strict formality for asylum appeals (GB v IPAT [2025] IEHC 543)

Date: Oct 21, 2025
Special circumstances as a gateway to late IPAT appeals: High Court affirms cumulative test and strict formality for asylum appeals (GB v IPAT [2025] IEHC 543) Introduction In GB v The International...
Brexit Is Not a “Taking Out” Under UCC Article 154: High Court sets RGR clock from pre‑Brexit movement and reinforces strict proof and representation duties

Brexit Is Not a “Taking Out” Under UCC Article 154: High Court sets RGR clock from pre‑Brexit movement and reinforces strict proof and representation duties

Date: Oct 21, 2025
Brexit Is Not a “Taking Out” Under UCC Article 154: High Court sets RGR clock from pre‑Brexit movement and reinforces strict proof and representation duties Introduction This commentary analyses the...
Intra-Party Nomination Directives Are Non-Justiciable, and the Constitution Cannot Be Unconstitutional: Commentary on Byrne v The Tánaiste & Ors [2025] IEHC 565

Intra-Party Nomination Directives Are Non-Justiciable, and the Constitution Cannot Be Unconstitutional: Commentary on Byrne v The Tánaiste & Ors [2025] IEHC 565

Date: Oct 21, 2025
Intra-Party Nomination Directives Are Non-Justiciable, and the Constitution Cannot Be Unconstitutional: Byrne v The Tánaiste & Ors [2025] IEHC 565 Introduction This High Court judgment, delivered by...

      Co-defendant Bad Character Evidence under s.101(1)(e) CJA 2003: When School CRIS Reports and Social Media Messages Supply “Substantial Probative Value” and the Required Jury Directions if Allegations Are Not Proved — R v Al‑Shumari [2025] EWCA Crim 1317

Co-defendant Bad Character Evidence under s.101(1)(e) CJA 2003: When School CRIS Reports and Social Media Messages Supply “Substantial Probative Value” and the Required Jury Directions if Allegations Are Not Proved — R v Al‑Shumari [2025] EWCA Crim 1317

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Co-defendant Bad Character Evidence under s.101(1)(e) CJA 2003: When School CRIS Reports and Social Media Messages Supply “Substantial Probative Value” and the Required Jury Directions if Allegations...
Carson v McKee [2025] NICA 53 — Courts must grapple with operative medical evidence before refusing adjournments; failure is a material error warranting limited remittal

Carson v McKee [2025] NICA 53 — Courts must grapple with operative medical evidence before refusing adjournments; failure is a material error warranting limited remittal

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Carson v McKee [2025] NICA 53 — Courts must grapple with operative medical evidence before refusing adjournments; failure is a material error warranting limited remittal Introduction In Carson v...
Undoing Unlawful Re-entry: Clarifying interim possession under section 47(2) and recall standards amid late buy‑out offers in sequestration sales

Undoing Unlawful Re-entry: Clarifying interim possession under section 47(2) and recall standards amid late buy‑out offers in sequestration sales

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Undoing Unlawful Re-entry: Clarifying interim possession under section 47(2) and recall standards amid late buy‑out offers in sequestration sales Introduction Decision: Opinion of Lord Richardson,...
QOCS Tender-Delay Exception Clarified: Objective Reasonableness Test and a Non-Variable 75% Cap on Pursuer’s Liability (Peter Gasper v Tain & Fearn Medical Practice and NHS Education for Scotland) [2025] CSOH 96

QOCS Tender-Delay Exception Clarified: Objective Reasonableness Test and a Non-Variable 75% Cap on Pursuer’s Liability (Peter Gasper v Tain & Fearn Medical Practice and NHS Education for Scotland) [2025] CSOH 96

Date: Oct 17, 2025
QOCS Tender-Delay Exception Clarified: Objective Reasonableness Test and a Non-Variable 75% Cap on Pursuer’s Liability Commentary on Peter Gasper v The Partners of Tain & Fearn Medical Practice and...
The s.34(11)/s.37 Interface Clarified: No Automatic Stay of an Issued Planning Grant Pending An Bord Pleanála Appeal

The s.34(11)/s.37 Interface Clarified: No Automatic Stay of an Issued Planning Grant Pending An Bord Pleanála Appeal

Date: Oct 17, 2025
The s.34(11)/s.37 Interface Clarified: No Automatic Stay of an Issued Planning Grant Pending An Bord Pleanála Appeal Case: Payne v Meath County Council, Ireland and The Attorney General; Breedon...
Discovery in Modular Trials: Court Files Must Be Accessed via Practice Direction HC86, Not Inter Partes, and Blanket Bankruptcy File Requests Are Impermissible

Discovery in Modular Trials: Court Files Must Be Accessed via Practice Direction HC86, Not Inter Partes, and Blanket Bankruptcy File Requests Are Impermissible

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Discovery in Modular Trials: Court Files Must Be Accessed via Practice Direction HC86, Not Inter Partes, and Blanket Bankruptcy File Requests Are Impermissible Case: Dunne & Ors v Lehane & Ors...
Public interest costs doctrine consolidated: no-order costs and vacatur across all levels where the State succeeds on a discrete issue of systemic importance — Hegarty v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2025] IESC 41 (Costs)

Public interest costs doctrine consolidated: no-order costs and vacatur across all levels where the State succeeds on a discrete issue of systemic importance — Hegarty v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2025] IESC 41 (Costs)

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Public interest costs doctrine consolidated: no-order costs and vacatur across all levels where the State succeeds on a discrete issue of systemic importance — Hegarty v Commissioner of An Garda...
The “Big Issue” Approach to Costs under the LSRA: Substantive Success Outweighs Narrow Relief — Electricity Supply Board v Good & ors [2025] IESC 40

The “Big Issue” Approach to Costs under the LSRA: Substantive Success Outweighs Narrow Relief — Electricity Supply Board v Good & ors [2025] IESC 40

Date: Oct 16, 2025
The “Big Issue” Approach to Costs under the LSRA: Substantive Success Outweighs Narrow Relief — Electricity Supply Board v Good & ors [2025] IESC 40 Introduction This commentary examines the Supreme...
Mackie v Mercedes-Benz: Misrepresentations as Continuing Acts for Prescription; broad s6(4) suspension; and Court of Session jurisdiction over Consumer Credit Act unfairness in group proceedings

Mackie v Mercedes-Benz: Misrepresentations as Continuing Acts for Prescription; broad s6(4) suspension; and Court of Session jurisdiction over Consumer Credit Act unfairness in group proceedings

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Misrepresentations as Continuing Acts, Broad s6(4) Suspension, and Court of Session Jurisdiction for Consumer Credit Act Unfairness in Group Proceedings Introduction In William Mackie (Representative...
Curtain Principle and Midcouple Requirement Reaffirmed: No “Solum Rights” Without a Pleaded Link in Title; Contractual Access May Be Vindicated Without Proving Ownership

Curtain Principle and Midcouple Requirement Reaffirmed: No “Solum Rights” Without a Pleaded Link in Title; Contractual Access May Be Vindicated Without Proving Ownership

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Curtain Principle and Midcouple Requirement Reaffirmed: No “Solum Rights” Without a Pleaded Link in Title; Contractual Access May Be Vindicated Without Proving Ownership Introduction This Outer House...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

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

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert