Log In
  • India
  • 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)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • 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

sienkiewicz-v-greif-(uk)-ltd:-upholding-the-fairchild-barker-exception-and-rejecting-the-& Case Commentaries

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...
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...
Article 5 ECHR, Extended Sentences and Rehabilitation: A Nine‑Month Post‑Custodial Delay Does Not Cross the Arbitrariness Threshold — AB v Scottish Ministers [2025] CSOH 82

Article 5 ECHR, Extended Sentences and Rehabilitation: A Nine‑Month Post‑Custodial Delay Does Not Cross the Arbitrariness Threshold — AB v Scottish Ministers [2025] CSOH 82

Date: Sep 3, 2025
Article 5 ECHR, Extended Sentences and Rehabilitation: A Nine‑Month Post‑Custodial Delay Does Not Cross the Arbitrariness Threshold — AB v Scottish Ministers [2025] CSOH 82 Introduction This...
Fletcher: Indefinite, Digitally‑Tailored Non‑Harassment Orders and Compensation as Core Sentencing Tools in Serious Domestic Abuse; Custody Still a Last Resort for First‑Time Adult Offenders

Fletcher: Indefinite, Digitally‑Tailored Non‑Harassment Orders and Compensation as Core Sentencing Tools in Serious Domestic Abuse; Custody Still a Last Resort for First‑Time Adult Offenders

Date: Sep 1, 2025
Fletcher: Indefinite, Digitally‑Tailored Non‑Harassment Orders and Compensation as Core Sentencing Tools in Serious Domestic Abuse; Custody Still a Last Resort for First‑Time Adult Offenders...
No duty on an interdictee to “mitigate” by seeking recall: continuing wrong, damages and interest in wrongful interdict – Commentary on Martin McGowan v Springfield Properties PLC [2025] CSOH 81

No duty on an interdictee to “mitigate” by seeking recall: continuing wrong, damages and interest in wrongful interdict – Commentary on Martin McGowan v Springfield Properties PLC [2025] CSOH 81

Date: Sep 1, 2025
No duty on an interdictee to “mitigate” by seeking recall: continuing wrong, damages and interest in wrongful interdict – McGowan v Springfield Properties PLC [2025] CSOH 81 Introduction This Outer...
In‑Proceedings Reporting Restrictions at Common Law: PMC v A Local Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 1126

In‑Proceedings Reporting Restrictions at Common Law: PMC v A Local Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 1126

Date: Aug 31, 2025
In‑Proceedings Reporting Restrictions at Common Law: PMC v A Local Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 1126 Introduction The Court of Appeal’s decision in PMC v A Local Health Board ([2025] EWCA Civ 1126)...
Judicial Review Is Not a Shortcut to Halt Pending Prosecutions: High Court Reaffirms Exceptional Nature of Prohibition and Routes Wrongful-Arrest Grievances to Plenary Actions

Judicial Review Is Not a Shortcut to Halt Pending Prosecutions: High Court Reaffirms Exceptional Nature of Prohibition and Routes Wrongful-Arrest Grievances to Plenary Actions

Date: Aug 27, 2025
Judicial Review Is Not a Shortcut to Halt Pending Prosecutions: High Court Reaffirms Exceptional Nature of Prohibition and Routes Wrongful-Arrest Grievances to Plenary Actions Decision commented on:...
No Shortcut to Trial: LSRA observations do not shift the plaintiff’s burden and a defendant’s pleaded case must be taken at its highest on strike‑out motions (Monarca v Hayes Solicitors LLP [2025] IEHC 472)

No Shortcut to Trial: LSRA observations do not shift the plaintiff’s burden and a defendant’s pleaded case must be taken at its highest on strike‑out motions (Monarca v Hayes Solicitors LLP [2025] IEHC 472)

Date: Aug 27, 2025
No Shortcut to Trial: LSRA observations do not shift the plaintiff’s burden and a defendant’s pleaded case must be taken at its highest on strike‑out motions Commentary on Monarca v Hayes Solicitors...
“Content-First Exclusion” in Electronic Communications Services: A Commentary on Sky UK Ltd v Ofcom [2025] EWCA Civ 1118

“Content-First Exclusion” in Electronic Communications Services: A Commentary on Sky UK Ltd v Ofcom [2025] EWCA Civ 1118

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“Content-First Exclusion” in Electronic Communications Services: A Structured Commentary on Sky UK Ltd v The Office of Communications ([2025] EWCA Civ 1118) 1. Introduction On 22 August 2025 the...

        S (A Child): The Court of Appeal Re-Aligns the Article 13(b) Test – Cumulative Risk,
        Vulnerable Children and the Limits of “Immediate Harm”

S (A Child): The Court of Appeal Re-Aligns the Article 13(b) Test – Cumulative Risk, Vulnerable Children and the Limits of “Immediate Harm”

Date: Aug 25, 2025
S (A Child) (Abduction: Article 13(b)) – Court of Appeal Clarifies the Correct, Holistic Test for “Grave Risk” and the Inadequacy of Abstract Protective Measures 1. Introduction In S (A Child)...
Farley v Paymaster (2025):  No-Disclosure Infringement, “Well-Founded Fear” Test, and the Rejection of a Seriousness Threshold under Article 82 GDPR

Farley v Paymaster (2025): No-Disclosure Infringement, “Well-Founded Fear” Test, and the Rejection of a Seriousness Threshold under Article 82 GDPR

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117— No Need for Third-Party Disclosure; No “Seriousness” Threshold; Compensation for “Well-Founded Fear” under GDPR 1....
“Resided Together” Means Living as Spouses: First Scottish Guidance on Paragraph 8(c) DMPA 1973 and Habitual Residence in Cross‑Border Divorce — Commentary on JMS v HMS [2025] CSOH 80

“Resided Together” Means Living as Spouses: First Scottish Guidance on Paragraph 8(c) DMPA 1973 and Habitual Residence in Cross‑Border Divorce — Commentary on JMS v HMS [2025] CSOH 80

Date: Aug 23, 2025
“Resided Together” Means Living as Spouses: First Scottish Guidance on Paragraph 8(c) DMPA 1973 and Habitual Residence in Cross‑Border Divorce Commentary on JMS against HMS (Court of Session) [2025]...
The “Flatley Test”: Determining Ordinary Residence and Sufficient Domestic Assets in Security-for-Costs Motions

The “Flatley Test”: Determining Ordinary Residence and Sufficient Domestic Assets in Security-for-Costs Motions

Date: Aug 22, 2025
The “Flatley Test”: Determining Ordinary Residence and Sufficient Domestic Assets in Security-for-Costs Motions Introduction Flatley v. Austin Newport Group Ltd & Ors ([2025] IEHC 461) is a...
Mutual Corroboration Across Long Intervals and Objective Indecency: Jury Primacy Reaffirmed in HMA v CM [2025] HCJAC 40

Mutual Corroboration Across Long Intervals and Objective Indecency: Jury Primacy Reaffirmed in HMA v CM [2025] HCJAC 40

Date: Aug 21, 2025
Mutual Corroboration Across Long Intervals and Objective Indecency: Jury Primacy Reaffirmed in HMA v CM [2025] HCJAC 40 Introduction This appeal under section 107A of the Criminal Procedure...
Dunbar Factors: Punitive Civil Contempt for Breach of Anton Piller and Mareva Orders in Digital Piracy Cases

Dunbar Factors: Punitive Civil Contempt for Breach of Anton Piller and Mareva Orders in Digital Piracy Cases

Date: Aug 21, 2025
Dunbar Factors: Punitive Civil Contempt for Breach of Anton Piller and Mareva Orders in Digital Piracy Cases Commentary on Sky UK Ltd v Dunbar (Approved) [2025] IEHC 465 (High Court, Sanfey J., 20...
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
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

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

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert