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

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...
Mechita: Purity, Quantity and Cash Can Evidence a “Leading Role”; Totality Permits Uplift of the Lead Concurrent Sentence and Consecutive Sentencing for Distinct Offending

Mechita: Purity, Quantity and Cash Can Evidence a “Leading Role”; Totality Permits Uplift of the Lead Concurrent Sentence and Consecutive Sentencing for Distinct Offending

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Mechita: Purity, Quantity and Cash Can Evidence a “Leading Role”; Totality Permits Uplift of the Lead Concurrent Sentence and Consecutive Sentencing for Distinct Offending Citation: R v Mechita...
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...
Primacy of Causation in Criminal Wasted Costs Orders: No Order Where the Hearing Disposes of the Case or Costs Would Be Incurred Anyway

Primacy of Causation in Criminal Wasted Costs Orders: No Order Where the Hearing Disposes of the Case or Costs Would Be Incurred Anyway

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Primacy of Causation in Criminal Wasted Costs Orders: No Order Where the Hearing Disposes of the Case or Costs Would Be Incurred Anyway Case: M & M Solicitors v Crown Court at Leicester (wasted...
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...
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...
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)...
Standard Method Prevails and Business-Entertainment Block Applies Upfront: Dual‑Use Analysis and the “More Precise” Test in Partial Exemption (Hippodrome Casino Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 1259)

Standard Method Prevails and Business-Entertainment Block Applies Upfront: Dual‑Use Analysis and the “More Precise” Test in Partial Exemption (Hippodrome Casino Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 1259)

Date: Oct 7, 2025
Standard Method Prevails and Business-Entertainment Block Applies Upfront: Dual‑Use Analysis and the “More Precise” Test in Partial Exemption Hippodrome Casino Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2025] EWCA...
Establishing Ireland’s Anti‑Suit and Anti‑Enforcement Injunction Jurisdiction to Protect Insolvency Proceedings and the Court’s Process: GTLK Europe DAC (In Liquidation) v JSC “State Transport Leasing Company” [2025] IEHC 524

Establishing Ireland’s Anti‑Suit and Anti‑Enforcement Injunction Jurisdiction to Protect Insolvency Proceedings and the Court’s Process: GTLK Europe DAC (In Liquidation) v JSC “State Transport Leasing Company” [2025] IEHC 524

Date: Oct 7, 2025
Establishing Ireland’s Anti‑Suit and Anti‑Enforcement Injunction Jurisdiction to Protect Insolvency Proceedings and the Court’s Process Commentary on GTLK Europe DAC (In Liquidation) v Companies Act...
Costs against a sanctioned party: success as the decisive factor; licence‑triggered payment deadlines; and no set‑off against a deferred Supreme Court costs order

Costs against a sanctioned party: success as the decisive factor; licence‑triggered payment deadlines; and no set‑off against a deferred Supreme Court costs order

Date: Oct 4, 2025
Costs against a sanctioned party: success as the decisive factor; licence‑triggered payment deadlines; and no set‑off against a deferred Supreme Court costs order Introduction This commentary...
Market‑Differential Damages on Buyer Cancellation under SALEFORM 2012: Court of Appeal Confirms Loss‑of‑Bargain Recovery and Implies a Due‑Diligence Delivery Duty

Market‑Differential Damages on Buyer Cancellation under SALEFORM 2012: Court of Appeal Confirms Loss‑of‑Bargain Recovery and Implies a Due‑Diligence Delivery Duty

Date: Oct 4, 2025
Market‑Differential Damages on Buyer Cancellation under SALEFORM 2012: Court of Appeal Confirms Loss‑of‑Bargain Recovery and Implies a Due‑Diligence Delivery Duty Introduction In Orion Shipping and...
Mandatory Engagement with Specific Development Plan Objectives: High Court requires explicit assessment of “practicable and viable” under LCC06 before permitting out‑of‑centre retail (Sherwin applied)

Mandatory Engagement with Specific Development Plan Objectives: High Court requires explicit assessment of “practicable and viable” under LCC06 before permitting out‑of‑centre retail (Sherwin applied)

Date: Oct 4, 2025
Mandatory Engagement with Specific Development Plan Objectives: High Court requires explicit assessment of “practicable and viable” under LCC06 before permitting out‑of‑centre retail (Sherwin...
When a Full Appeal Is Run, a Reduced Appellate Award Does Not Displace “Entire Success” for Costs: Commentary on AB v MW (No. 2) [2025] IEHC 517

When a Full Appeal Is Run, a Reduced Appellate Award Does Not Displace “Entire Success” for Costs: Commentary on AB v MW (No. 2) [2025] IEHC 517

Date: Oct 4, 2025
When a Full Appeal Is Run, a Reduced Appellate Award Does Not Displace “Entire Success” for Costs: Commentary on AB v MW (No. 2) [2025] IEHC 517 Introduction This commentary examines the High Court...
FBD: Concurrency for proportionality in historic sexual offences and aggregated release under s.244A CJA 2003

FBD: Concurrency for proportionality in historic sexual offences and aggregated release under s.244A CJA 2003

Date: Oct 4, 2025
FBD: Concurrency for proportionality in historic sexual offences and aggregated release under s.244A CJA 2003 Introduction In FBD, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1370, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)...
MCK (R v) [2025] EWCA Crim 1371: Age and Lack of Previous Convictions Not a Bar to a Dangerousness Finding; Extended Determinate Sentence Upheld

MCK (R v) [2025] EWCA Crim 1371: Age and Lack of Previous Convictions Not a Bar to a Dangerousness Finding; Extended Determinate Sentence Upheld

Date: Oct 4, 2025
MCK (R v) [2025] EWCA Crim 1371: Age and Lack of Previous Convictions Not a Bar to a Dangerousness Finding; Extended Determinate Sentence Upheld Introduction This commentary examines the decision in...
New 8–15 Year Sentencing Range for Multiple Hijackings, Article 6 Delay Not Mitigation, and Prosecutorial Duty to Indicate Sentencing Range — Commentary on R v Collins & Mateer [2025] NICA 50

New 8–15 Year Sentencing Range for Multiple Hijackings, Article 6 Delay Not Mitigation, and Prosecutorial Duty to Indicate Sentencing Range — Commentary on R v Collins & Mateer [2025] NICA 50

Date: Oct 4, 2025
New 8–15 Year Sentencing Range for Multiple Hijackings, Article 6 Delay Not Mitigation, and Prosecutorial Duty to Indicate Sentencing Range — Commentary on R v Collins & Mateer [2025] NICA 50 Case:...
“Special circumstances” as a strict gateway to renewing an unserved summons: S.W. v Health Service Executive [2025] IEHC 526

“Special circumstances” as a strict gateway to renewing an unserved summons: S.W. v Health Service Executive [2025] IEHC 526

Date: Oct 4, 2025
“Special circumstances” as a strict gateway to renewing an unserved summons: S.W. v Health Service Executive [2025] IEHC 526 Introduction In S.W. v Health Service Executive [2025] IEHC 526, the High...
Culpability and Mens Rea in “Allowing” under s.5 DVCVA: Guilty Plea Fixes Objective Awareness; Exceptional Mitigation for Parental Status Rejected — Commentary on AD [2025] NICA 48

Culpability and Mens Rea in “Allowing” under s.5 DVCVA: Guilty Plea Fixes Objective Awareness; Exceptional Mitigation for Parental Status Rejected — Commentary on AD [2025] NICA 48

Date: Oct 4, 2025
Culpability and Mens Rea in “Allowing” under s.5 DVCVA: Guilty Plea Fixes Objective Awareness; Exceptional Mitigation for Parental Status Rejected — Commentary on AD [2025] NICA 48 Key takeaways A...
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