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

respecting-sibling-relationships-in-children& Case Commentaries

R v Masih & Singh [2025] EWCA Crim 1236: Upward departures in money laundering sentences when underlying drugs harm is identifiable (Ogden-calibrated approach affirmed)

R v Masih & Singh [2025] EWCA Crim 1236: Upward departures in money laundering sentences when underlying drugs harm is identifiable (Ogden-calibrated approach affirmed)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Upward departures in money-laundering sentencing where underlying drugs harm is identifiable: Court of Appeal affirms Ogden-calibrated approach in R v Masih & Singh [2025] EWCA Crim 1236 Citation: R...
Unduly Lenient References: Appellate Deference to Charge Framing and the Suspendability of Category C “Production” Offences — R v Hargrave [2025] EWCA Crim 1233

Unduly Lenient References: Appellate Deference to Charge Framing and the Suspendability of Category C “Production” Offences — R v Hargrave [2025] EWCA Crim 1233

Date: Sep 10, 2025
Unduly Lenient References: Appellate Deference to Charge Framing and the Suspendability of Category C “Production” Offences — R v Hargrave [2025] EWCA Crim 1233 Introduction This commentary analyses...
No Collateral Article 10 Defence to Breach of Court of Protection Injunctions: Immediate Custody for Repeated, Knowing Contempt — Macpherson v Sunderland City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1159

No Collateral Article 10 Defence to Breach of Court of Protection Injunctions: Immediate Custody for Repeated, Knowing Contempt — Macpherson v Sunderland City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1159

Date: Sep 10, 2025
No Collateral Article 10 Defence to Breach of Court of Protection Injunctions: Immediate Custody for Repeated, Knowing Contempt — Macpherson v Sunderland City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1159...
Out-of-time judicial review dismissals operate as res judicata: High Court strikes out collateral plenary challenge; “continuing breach” and Greendale fraud arguments rejected

Out-of-time judicial review dismissals operate as res judicata: High Court strikes out collateral plenary challenge; “continuing breach” and Greendale fraud arguments rejected

Date: Sep 10, 2025
Out-of-time judicial review dismissals operate as res judicata: High Court strikes out collateral plenary challenge; “continuing breach” and Greendale fraud arguments rejected Introduction In Browne...
R v Mikolajczyk [2025] EWCA Crim 1232: A stringent “interests of justice” standard for 12‑year out‑of‑time appeals and the limits on re-trying jury verdicts

R v Mikolajczyk [2025] EWCA Crim 1232: A stringent “interests of justice” standard for 12‑year out‑of‑time appeals and the limits on re-trying jury verdicts

Date: Sep 10, 2025
R v Mikolajczyk [2025] EWCA Crim 1232: A stringent “interests of justice” standard for 12‑year out‑of‑time appeals and the limits on re-trying jury verdicts Introduction In R v Mikolajczyk [2025]...
R v Bergstrom [2025] EWCA Crim 1301: Voluntary Desistance Requires a Significant Step‑Two Downward Adjustment Under s.10 Guideline, Balanced by Aggravation and Totality

R v Bergstrom [2025] EWCA Crim 1301: Voluntary Desistance Requires a Significant Step‑Two Downward Adjustment Under s.10 Guideline, Balanced by Aggravation and Totality

Date: Sep 10, 2025
R v Bergstrom [2025] EWCA Crim 1301: Voluntary Desistance Requires a Significant Step‑Two Downward Adjustment Under s.10 Guideline, Balanced by Aggravation and Totality Introduction This commentary...
Liberty to Apply Is for Working Out, Not Rewriting: Limits on Post‑Judgment Clarification and Retrospective Time Extension in Point Village Development Ltd v Dunnes Stores [2025] IEHC 480

Liberty to Apply Is for Working Out, Not Rewriting: Limits on Post‑Judgment Clarification and Retrospective Time Extension in Point Village Development Ltd v Dunnes Stores [2025] IEHC 480

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Liberty to Apply Is for Working Out, Not Rewriting: Limits on Post‑Judgment Clarification and Retrospective Time Extension in Point Village Development Ltd v Dunnes Stores [2025] IEHC 480...
Automatic Statutory Substitution under Section 41 of the Central Bank Act 1971: No Court Order Required; Collateral Challenges Struck Out and Injunction Undertakings Discharged — Commentary on KBC Bank NV v Smith & Ors [2025] IEHC 481

Automatic Statutory Substitution under Section 41 of the Central Bank Act 1971: No Court Order Required; Collateral Challenges Struck Out and Injunction Undertakings Discharged — Commentary on KBC Bank NV v Smith & Ors [2025] IEHC 481

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Automatic Statutory Substitution under Section 41 of the Central Bank Act 1971: No Court Order Required; Collateral Challenges Struck Out and Injunction Undertakings Discharged Introduction This...
Patel v R: Post‑Brexit closure of EU free‑movement defences to cannabis importation and the confinement of Margiotta to proven low‑THC cases

Patel v R: Post‑Brexit closure of EU free‑movement defences to cannabis importation and the confinement of Margiotta to proven low‑THC cases

Date: Sep 8, 2025
Patel v R: Post‑Brexit closure of EU free‑movement defences to cannabis importation and the confinement of Margiotta to proven low‑THC cases Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), England and...
Evans v R: OSGs Can Be Public Officers; Likely Consequences, Not Proven Harm, Define Seriousness in Misconduct in Public Office

Evans v R: OSGs Can Be Public Officers; Likely Consequences, Not Proven Harm, Define Seriousness in Misconduct in Public Office

Date: Sep 8, 2025
Evans v R: OSGs Can Be Public Officers; Likely Consequences, Not Proven Harm, Define Seriousness in Misconduct in Public Office Introduction In Evans v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 1150), the Court of Appeal...
Potanina v Potanin (No. 2): Aligning the Part III Leave Threshold with a “Real Prospect of Success” and confirming (pre‑Brexit) Maintenance Regulation constraints on forum objections

Potanina v Potanin (No. 2): Aligning the Part III Leave Threshold with a “Real Prospect of Success” and confirming (pre‑Brexit) Maintenance Regulation constraints on forum objections

Date: Sep 6, 2025
Potanina v Potanin (No. 2): Aligning the Part III Leave Threshold with a “Real Prospect of Success” and confirming (pre‑Brexit) Maintenance Regulation constraints on forum objections Introduction...
Section 11(7D) as Gatekeeper in Domestic‑Abuse Contact Disputes: Refusal of Even Indirect Contact despite Positive Sessions — SJM v AJD [2025] CSOH 84

Section 11(7D) as Gatekeeper in Domestic‑Abuse Contact Disputes: Refusal of Even Indirect Contact despite Positive Sessions — SJM v AJD [2025] CSOH 84

Date: Sep 6, 2025
Section 11(7D) as Gatekeeper in Domestic‑Abuse Contact Disputes: Refusal of Even Indirect Contact despite Positive Sessions — SJM v AJD [2025] CSOH 84 Citation: SJM v AJD [2025] CSOH 84 (Outer House,...
R v Thorpe [2025] EWCA Crim 1334: Corrosive Substances (s.6 OWA 2019) Sentenced by Analogy with the Bladed/Offensive Weapons Guideline; Recall Time Not a Basis for Sentence Reduction

R v Thorpe [2025] EWCA Crim 1334: Corrosive Substances (s.6 OWA 2019) Sentenced by Analogy with the Bladed/Offensive Weapons Guideline; Recall Time Not a Basis for Sentence Reduction

Date: Sep 6, 2025
R v Thorpe [2025] EWCA Crim 1334: Corrosive Substances (s.6 OWA 2019) Sentenced by Analogy with the Bladed/Offensive Weapons Guideline; Recall Time Not a Basis for Sentence Reduction Introduction In...
The McMahon Two‑Stage Approach: Deferred Consideration and Deliberate Dissipation in Valuing and Dividing Business Assets under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

The McMahon Two‑Stage Approach: Deferred Consideration and Deliberate Dissipation in Valuing and Dividing Business Assets under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

Date: Sep 6, 2025
The McMahon Two‑Stage Approach: Deferred Consideration and Deliberate Dissipation in Valuing and Dividing Business Assets under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 Introduction In Nicola Drummond or...
EAC v The King: Post‑Retirement Jury Information and Time‑Limited Child‑Cruelty Sentencing — Neutrality, Non‑Prejudice and Downward Adjustment

EAC v The King: Post‑Retirement Jury Information and Time‑Limited Child‑Cruelty Sentencing — Neutrality, Non‑Prejudice and Downward Adjustment

Date: Sep 4, 2025
EAC v The King: Post‑Retirement Jury Information and Time‑Limited Child‑Cruelty Sentencing — Neutrality, Non‑Prejudice and Downward Adjustment Introduction This commentary examines the Court of...
Somani Hotels: Court of Appeal clarifies “desirable” joinder of the Home Secretary and a status‑quo preference for s.187B planning injunctions affecting asylum accommodation

Somani Hotels: Court of Appeal clarifies “desirable” joinder of the Home Secretary and a status‑quo preference for s.187B planning injunctions affecting asylum accommodation

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Somani Hotels: Court of Appeal clarifies “desirable” joinder of the Home Secretary and a status‑quo preference for s.187B planning injunctions affecting asylum accommodation Introduction In Somani...
No English Winding-Up of SICAV “Dedicated Funds”: Compartment Is Not an “Association” under Insolvency Act 1986 s 220

No English Winding-Up of SICAV “Dedicated Funds”: Compartment Is Not an “Association” under Insolvency Act 1986 s 220

Date: Sep 4, 2025
No English Winding-Up of SICAV “Dedicated Funds”: Compartment Is Not an “Association” under Insolvency Act 1986 s 220 Introduction This Court of Appeal decision in East Riding of Yorkshire Council...
Implicit Criminal-Proceedings Leverage as “Unambiguous Impropriety”: High Court admits WPSATC correspondence — QPQ Limited v Schute [2025] IEHC 474

Implicit Criminal-Proceedings Leverage as “Unambiguous Impropriety”: High Court admits WPSATC correspondence — QPQ Limited v Schute [2025] IEHC 474

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Implicit Criminal‑Proceedings Leverage as “Unambiguous Impropriety”: High Court Admits WPSATC Correspondence QPQ Limited v Schute (Approved) [2025] IEHC 474, High Court of Ireland, Commercial List...
Ageing‑Out Does Not Create Sentencing Prejudice: Jurisdiction‑First under s.75 Children Act and Non‑application of s.13 Criminal Law Act 1976 to Children Detention Schools

Ageing‑Out Does Not Create Sentencing Prejudice: Jurisdiction‑First under s.75 Children Act and Non‑application of s.13 Criminal Law Act 1976 to Children Detention Schools

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Ageing‑Out Does Not Create Sentencing Prejudice: Jurisdiction‑First under s.75 Children Act and Non‑application of s.13 Criminal Law Act 1976 to Children Detention Schools Case: K (Aged Out Child) v...
“Payment disputes” under s.6 of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 are confined to contractual payments; common‑law termination damages are not adjudicable — and planning irregularities do not render construction contracts void

“Payment disputes” under s.6 of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 are confined to contractual payments; common‑law termination damages are not adjudicable — and planning irregularities do not render construction contracts void

Date: Sep 4, 2025
“Payment disputes” under s.6 of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 are confined to contractual payments; common‑law termination damages are not adjudicable — and planning irregularities do not...
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.