For help on the search features, try the Search Help page.
See also Statistics
See also How it Works and Quick Guide
lawindexpro now uses a cookie. It stores on your computer a note of any external site from which you executed a search. When you sdubscribe it tells us where you found us. The cookie is discarded by your computer automatically after a few weeks. You can delete this and any other cookies at any time, or set your browser not to accept cookies.
Please note that we ask you not to delete the cookies. Our cookies system rewards affiliates, who in turn are happier to advertise lawindexpro. That facility keeps the costs down to us, and eventually keeps down the charges to you.
The fact of your contact with lawindexpro through a third party site will be made known to that site, but not further or otherwise. No personal details will be given out.
If you disable cookies, this will not affect your use of lawindexpro.
There are several possible answers:
We use an absolutely standard password authentication system. It works. On every occasion when we have been asked to check a password, the one given out has worked. The occasions when there has been a difficulty have been associated with either mistypes, or passwords having expired. Still it is very possible that we will have made a mistyake. If you have any difficulty at all, please do contact us, and it can usually be resolved very quickly.
Why do you include cases from before 1992. You cannot hope to include them all.
We call such cases 'Roots' cases. Common law, Judge made law depends for a significant part of its authority upon its reliance upon earlier cases. Cases rarely stand on their own. They are as they are because other judges have painstakingly thought through similar situations before, and explained their reasoning and conclusions. Later judges rely upon those earlier cases to inform their own reasoning and understanding, and express their own conclusions by reference to the case's historical context. They stand upon the shoulders of their predcessor brothers and sisters. Those judges in turn stood on the shoulders of others.
Of those earlier cases, a very substantial number disappear into insignificance. Our cases are selected for inclusion because they have been used within the last few years as references. Their continued relevance, significance and indeed life has been demonstrated by that use. These 'Cited cases' are the roots of the law as it is understood and applied today. They feed the understanding of our present day judges and help to express our law. We therefore include them. What we cannot generally do, of course, is to
When we present a case along with the cases cited in it, something unique and powerful happens. The ideas which are all mixed up when a case is brought before a judge are extricated, and laid bare. The way we present such cases seems to demonstrate clearly the logic which has gone into the case under consideration. I always wanted to be able to do something along these lines with case law. I sometimes have to pinch myself because (in my eyes at least) it succeeds so dramatically.
We will never quite finish this task of adding the Roots cases. It was only begun properly in early 2003, some eleven years after we began the index at all, but already, it is becoming clear that the task as a whole is manageable. We are not trying to present every case to the reader. We are establishing a list, long but still very much shorter than it might be, of cases which have continuing relevance. They are here to help demonstrate the logic underlying current cases of interest. They are included for that purpose, and not as an attempt to present them properly on their own.
On the listing for each case is a button saying 'Up'. When pressed, this sends a request to us to check that case, to upgrade it.
Many cases which come on to the database have no headnote. An upgrade of such a case will usually lead to it being read and noted up fully. We do not promise always to do this because tracing some cases is difficult. We do from time to time (ahem) mistype our notes. When asked to check a case which is already noted up, we will first check for any patent errors. Often the case may have two or more listings. We will usually take an upgrade request as a chance to check it fully. The process of upgrading a case can take several days. Sometimes it will be effective within a day or so, but it can take longer. If you want anything quicker, it is easy simply to make a request to us by email.
Getting about in lawindexpro should be fairly easy. There are one or two things to remember.
You can test whether we have any particular case by using the search facilities which are open to all visitors, whether subscribers or not. Please note that we recommend against the use of lawindexpro to find a single case. It can work like that, but that is an underuse of the service.
Lawindexpro is a subscription system. Short term 'library tickets' are available from the subscriptions section of the menu.
The High Court hears many thousands of cases every year. The vast majority are never reported, by us or by anybody else. It is a matter of judgement as to whether the judgment in any particular case is worth publishing. For the House of Lords, Privy Council, and European Courts, very nearly all cases tend be published. The test is (or should be) whether any particular point of law is usefully discussed or clarified.
That decision as to whether a case should be reported is something about which there may be proper disagreement, and there are many kinds of cases which will be of interest to specialist lawyers which will not be reported in a generalist series. One example will be cases on damages awards. Personal injury specialists particularly used to rely upon cases where the relevant matter was not the legal content of the judgment, but the fact that a broken nose was worth 5,000 gbp. We do not include such cases, because, in any event what is required is not the judgment, but value and a description of the injuries.
Professional and lay users will make use of the site differently. Most searches by lawyers, law students, and academics will be for cases by name. They have an idea of what they want, and a name will quickly find it. Lay users, including many litigants in person use the site differently, and it is important to realise some of the difficulties.
All our searches search only material held within the index. This does include a small amount of text otherwise hidden from users, but does not include the text of the judgements themselves. This means that searches for content of any type will be less effective. Thjis is more often the type of search which seems to be undertaken by lay users. It is not for us to seek to educate nan-lawyers, but these searches seem often to betray also a failure to understand the way cases are used in court. In general it is quite unproductive to look for cases with similar factual backgrounds. They can be very easily missed, and can be verey misleading, because a small change in a factual background may have very substantial legal effect on an outcome.
We therefore emphasise, again, that this is a system designed for professional lawyers. Others are very welcome to use it, but it may prove less effective, because and inevitably, the sorts of searches being undertaken are not those for which the system is designed.
'FAQ' stands for 'Frequently asked Questions. It's a traditional form of document used on the Internet for providng the answers to questions which get asked all the time. It might also have been better called 'AFQ' - Answers to Frequent Questions, or (according to my experience) 'FQA' - Frequently Questioned Answers.
This is always the first place to look when seeking enlightenment. It will rarely be the last.
We list more cases than we will process. We have to give priority to some cases over others. This is the list and order.
We respect the privacy of our subscribers, customers and visitors. We hold no more data about you than is required to manage our dealings with you, and for our own marketing purposes.
We do not receive any details about your credit card except the nature of the card, save when subscribers pay by telephone. If you do subscribe by telephone, we will destroy any note of your credit card in our possession once payment has been authorised.
We now use cookies.
We will not pass on any information about you to third parties, save as may be required under law.
We do not allow anonymous use of the site.
You may request us to provide details of the information held by us about you, and such details will be provided upon payment of a fee of £10.00p
Data is held by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, HD6 2AG, and ds@lawindepro.co.uk, to whom all requests or enquiries should be addressed.
Our site is not full of wonderful graphics, or for that matter wonderful graphic design. Why? First, it is not what we are good at. Second, the site is dominated by our need to deliver content. One small image takes the space of many lines of text. We use graphics to try to assist you finding your way around, but beyond that we have done what we can to maximise the speed of loading, which in turn means that we dump the images.
Because it is August (or Christmas or Easter)! Put simply, the courts go (almost) to sleep in August each year. There are few new cases, and often even if cases are being heard, the chap who updates the web-sites is on holiday, or doing the additional job of somebody else who has gone on holiday.
This doesn't mean that I can rest. It merely means that I have another opportunity to fail to catch up on summarising cases! The chap at the Times used to disappear also at the beginning of September, so there would be no Times reports for this period. Unfortunately, that means that they have opportunity to print cases which should have gone in a month ago but didn't.
Possibly the least expected problem we had in this project was the differences in naming conventions between the various web-sites. On the same sites the conventions seem to differ from day to day. Examples:
'R v Smith' will appear variously also as 'Reg v. A Smith', 'Regina versus Albert Smith', 'The Queen V Smith (Albert Walter)', 'Smith, R v ', and even 'R E G I N A -v- Smith', and also in any sub-combination. Nearly always, we translate such names into the format 'Regina -v- Smith' We use the full name, spell out 'Regina', and use '-v-' rather than just v or v.
Some source sites include the title as part of the name. Smith v Jones, would appear as Mrs Smith v Mr Jones. We will usually remove the titles 'Mr', 'Mrs', 'Miss' and 'Ms' They badly confuse the alphabetical ordering. We will leave in more formal titles such as 'Dr' or 'Sir' since these are of rather more assistance.
Some sites will use either full first names or initials, or neither. Where that information is given, we usually retain it, since it genuinely adds to the ease of differentiating one case from the next. Still and again, sites differ. One site will use 'R v Smith (Peter)' where another will use 'R v Peter Smith'
People's names are mis-spelled. We are not necessarily very much better than the others, but when you see how common this is, it is disconcerting. Where we spot it, we correct it, where we don't spot a mistake, we can't correct it. We welcome notification of errors (push the 'up' button).
All this is particularly important, because we use the computer to find case names. I intend you to do so. A person is perfectly capable of scanning a list of cases, recognising what, in comon sense is the case wanted, and acting upon it. That degree of common sense, is not available to a computer. Until we manage to invent something rather better, take care with case names.
We have access to the most common search terms used by visitors to the site. From where I stand, I can see that many will fail. It may be that those who know their way around the site use better ways of finding case names, and that those who do not find what they want try a few times just to make sure (which would emphasise the failures above the sucesses). Who knows.
Support is by e-mail. We will normally try to respond, by e-mail, within 36 hours. Our system should be easy to install and use. Please do read through the support pages first.
Where telephone support is requested, and the answer is provided within the files on the site, we reserve the right to charge for that support.
All communications are in plain text. they are not secure, and it must be assumed that emails can be read by others.
The only exception is that the credit card payment system is very much more secure. The section maintained by WorldPay is kept secure by them. Details of your credit card number are not transmitted to us.
It will be nice when we are rid of them, but that may be a long way away. First, there are one or two core problems. The same case will be give different names by different sites. The same case will often come up before the same court on more than one occasion, sometimes even on the same day. When we add new cases, we try to work through them to check that we are not creating new duplicates. Mechanical searching is both difficult and dangerous. We take it as far as experience tells us is safe, but it still isn't perfect.
We do have many situations still, where one or more elements of a case are duplicated, and where the the reasons are historical. We are working hard to clear them, but it will take some considerable time - perhaps we will never be rid of them entirely. We are not giving this over-riding priority, and do not intend to do so. We are concentrating on making sure that the new material is accurate and properly noted up, and only when that has been achieved, can we apply attention to the older material.
One particular problem is that, for example Bailii set out with one style of recording EAT cases, but then re thought and re-startd with another. It crated two records for each case. It is wrong to withdraw them, and we re-combine them as we find them.
These can be confusing terms. They are also used interchangeably, but these are the meanings on lawindexpro
Please note however that somebody may write down the judge's judgement as he reads it, and call what he has written down a transcript. Similarly many judgments go only a short way beyond being simple court orders.
People sometimes wish to fnd out what happened in a Crown Court Trial. In such trials, there is no judgment as such. A judge states the law, and a jury says yes or no, guilty or not. A Crown Court judge's opinio, whilst clearly more significant than my own, is of no significance as a precedent in law, and his views (the summing up) are recorded only in the hope for a defendant that he will get something wrong, leaving an opportunity for appeal. If the case is appealed, there is still only a small chance that that case will be reported to lawyers - only those of legal significance are reported, and that is a small proportion.
What we have we have, and what we don't we can usually get.
This attempts a fair description of what we have on lawindexpro. What we have is growing in its useability constantly. It is vital to understand that we do not either ourselves provide the full text of cases, nor a full index of case law. Some might claim to provide these, but we can not see how any such claim could ever be true.
For the period before 1993, we do not have full or proper coverage, though we are moving steadily forward.
See also our statistics page for more detail.
What we are very difinitely not is a database of judgments (in terms of money or otherwise) against particular people and companies. If we had that, the database would be at least a thousand times as big and at least ten times as expensive. We are here for lawyers, law academics and law students who are interested in legal judgments of interest because they demonstrate some point of law.
| Time Period | Listings | Links to full text judgements | Headnotes | References to other sources |
| From / To | Usually judgments made available by courts | Short Notes about the case | References to or citations for paper based resources | |
| Before 1953. We are adding historical cases as indications arise that they remain relevant. | 2765 | Very few | For most, but by no means every case. | Some reference for each case. |
| 1953-1960 | 250 | European Court of Justice decisions, but otherwise very few. | Most but not all cases listed. No headnotes for most European Case Law | Some reference for each case. |
| 1961-1993 | 13,500 | European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights decisions. Otherwise very few | Most but not all cases listed. Many notes are very brief. | One or more references for each case |
| 1994-1996 | 10,000 | European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights decisions. Otherwise very few | Most but not all cases listed. Most cases of general interest are indexed. Many notes are very brief. | One or more references for each case. |
| 1996-2005 | 66,000 | European Courts, English High Courts, House of Lords, Privy Council decisions. Employment Appeal Tribunal, Lands Tribunal, Patents Courts and others. | Many cases of general interest are noted, but a large number of judgments linked to have not been noted up. The notations are generally fuller. | Some reference for each case. Many cases we list are now available only in electronic form, with no 'paper reference' |
One issue is how to measure our coverage. In each year there will be, and will have been, many thousands of judgments handed down. Some will be of general interest, some of particular interest to a very small group of specialists, but very many will be of no real surviving or continuing interest. Which case falls into which category is a matter for editorial judgment. The All ER and WLR are generalist resources. Each publish (very approximately) 350 cases per year. If they coincide by 80 percent (ie there is an 80% chance that a case in the one series will also be reported in the other) then we might suggest that there are about 420 to 450 cases a year properly of general interest to lawyers. I think it reasonable to take that as a measure of the number of judgments which are significant in the year in which they are handed down.
A second factor then comes into play. As each year goes by, cases published in earlier years will become less relevant. They might either be over-ruled, or a statute passed which quietly but effectively condemns it to the dustbin of legal history. It is difficult to quantify this figure, but the phenomenon is clearly real enough to make it worth not attempting to recreate a 'full' list of earlier cases, and we could not do this in any event.
We now (from June 2003) include lists of the cases cited in a case as we note it up. We then include those cited cases, 'Roots Cases', in our own database, if we can give it at least a reference. Where we can also provide a useful head note, we will do so. The result is that, as time goes by, we are building up a much longer list of case references, and it is one which disappears back in time, back into the Roots cases. The current oldest case referred to is from 1223.
Where a case is cited, but we know nothing more at all about it, we classify it as a 'Reference' case. This is a temporary status, but many will continue to be listed in this way for some time. We had, at first a list of approximately 800 'reference only' cases. We have worked slowly through them, and have about 430 left.
I am concerned that looking at the list might suggest that we have a proper coverage of older case law. We do not. 1993 is the first year for which I would claim to have anything like a proper coverage. It must be noted also that full text judgments are generally (and will remain) unavailable for cases before 1996.
As more and more older cases come within the database, it must at some point become sensible for us to claim that we have proper coverage for cases from any one older year. Making a fully arbitrary assumption that each new year brings 800 new cases of interest, and that in each year 4% of the remaining cases become irrelevant, we can produce a table showing what number of cases we have to provide for any year to be able to make a sensible claim to retain a good coverage of the cases for that year. The table is mathematically easy to produce, and is shown, in part, below. If you take a look at the statistics section in the FAQ, you can make a comparison.
Where we can say that we have more than the number of cases shown in the table for that and all subsequent years, then we will consider saying that we have good coverage for that year. On this basis We have such coverage for all years back to 1992, which is all that we have ever claimed. For 1991 we have 452 out of a required 460 cases. As we go back in time, and very particularly from 1990 we have less than seventy five percent coverage.
2003 750
2002 720
2000 664
1999 637
1998 612
1997 587
1996 564
1995 541
1994 519
1993 499
1992 479
1991 460
1988 407
1981 306
1971 203
1956 110
1951 90
1937 51
1920 25
1900 11
1875 4
1850 1
1825 1
This is of course a bit of amiable nonsense. There is no easy way of making a sensible measurement.
What I do know is that when editing cases and checking whether a case cited is already in the index, the ratio of 'already included' to 'not yet included' will over a long period rise. It will never reach 100%, but I do hope that if a point comes where, perhaps, less than 30 per cent of cases are added as they are cited, I can argue that we have good coverage for that year. It may even be that the figure goes down for a while, which reflects the way the index was first constructed.
The table below gives an idea of how we are doing. The first column shows the number of cases which are recorded within the index as having been cited in another case. The second column is a count of the number of such citations where the reference is to a case with a higher index number. This implies (generally - but by no means always) that the case cited was included within the index as a result of having been cited. The ratio is the percentage of new case citations which are of cases already in the index. This figure will, I hope increase, albeit very slowly. The calculation might be considerably improved by perhaps taking only cases added within the preceding six months.
| Typical/ normalised | Alternate | Title | Earliest known | Latest Known | Publisher | Comment |
| [2002] 1 WLR 203 [year] v COD page | Weekly Law Reports | 1950 | Current | ICLR | The Weekly Law Reports are the preferred set of law reports for use in court. Other should be used only where the case is not available in WLR. A rule for the breaking of which solicitors get castigated, but which very many judges themselves happily repeatedly and flagrantly ignore. | |
| [2003] 1 All ER 203 | AER | All England Law reports | 1935 | Current | Butterworths | The major commercially produced series. 300-350 cases a year plus abcillary. |
| [2003] 2 EGLR 120 | EG | Estates Gazette Law Reports | Current | |||
| (2000) 30 EHRR 878 | [2002] 30 EHRR 878 | European Human Rights Reports | Current | |||
| [2002] EMLR 278 | Entertainment and Media Law Reports | Current | ||||
| [2001] 2 FLR 612 | Family Law Review | 1980 | 2002 | |||
| (2001) 165 JP 800 | 2001 | Current | ||||
| (2001) 165 JP 800 | Justice of the Peace | 2001 | Current | |||
| [1910] VLR 494 | Victoria Law Reports | 1910 | 1910 | Unknown | Australian cases. | |
| Lloyd's Rep | LLR | Lloyd's Reports | Insurance Commercial and Shipping cases. Good for general commercial case law. | |||
| [1956] P & CR 2 345 | Planning and Compensation Reports | Current | Town and Country Planning, Compulsory Purchase - most cases to do with valuation of land. | |||
Good (well ok, very much better) lists of law rport abbreviations are available at:
It is not immediate. We are notified of a subscription by email. We check for subscribers frequently on most days, but we still have to verify authorisation by your card company before accepting the subscription and issuing the ID and password.
A subscriber may hear from us within the hour, but if, for example you subscribe in the wee small hours, you will not get an answer until the morning. Sometimes, when away on holiday or out of the office, response times will be slower and may be by use of a temporary password.
To allow for this we have three rules:
| Area of Law | Case Count | |
| Administrative | ? | 366 |
| Adoption | ? | 104 |
| Agency | ? | 122 |
| Agriculture | ? | 160 |
| Animals | ? | 69 |
| Arbitration | ? | 212 |
| Armed Forces | ? | 68 |
| Banking | ? | 363 |
| Benefits | ? | 1014 |
| Capital Gains Tax | ? | 87 |
| Charity | ? | 69 |
| Child Support | ? | 49 |
| Children | ? | 775 |
| Civil Procedure Rules | ? | 219 |
| Commercial | ? | 242 |
| Commonwealth | ? | 699 |
| Company | ? | 737 |
| Constitutional | ? | 202 |
| Construction | ? | 234 |
| Consumer | ? | 181 |
| Contempt of Court | ? | 196 |
| Contract | ? | 1064 |
| Coroners | ? | 142 |
| Corporation Tax | ? | 128 |
| Costs | ? | 627 |
| County Court Rules | ? | 75 |
| Crime | ? | 13373 |
| Criminal Evidence | ? | 251 |
| Criminal Practice | ? | 1338 |
| Criminal Sentencing | ? | 852 |
| Customs and Excise | ? | 104 |
| Damages | ? | 808 |
| Defamation | ? | 361 |
| Discrimination | ? | 1097 |
| Ecclesiastical | ? | 79 |
| Education | ? | 330 |
| Elections | ? | 52 |
| Employment | ? | 13336 |
| Environment | ? | 251 |
| Equity | ? | 271 |
| Estoppel | ? | 113 |
| European | ? | 9560 |
| Evidence | ? | 349 |
| Extradition | ? | 127 |
| Family | ? | 365 |
| Financial Services | ? | 184 |
| Health | ? | 344 |
| Health and Safety | ? | 136 |
| Health Professions | ? | 372 |
| Housing | ? | 630 |
| Human Rights | ? | 5920 |
| Immigration | ? | 1295 |
| Income Tax | ? | 352 |
| Information | ? | 70 |
| Inheritance Tax | ? | 28 |
| Insolvency | ? | 619 |
| Insurance | ? | 442 |
| Intellectual Property | ? | 3383 |
| International | ? | 138 |
| Judicial Review | ? | 287 |
| Jurisdiction | ? | 261 |
| Jury | ? | 8902 |
| Land | ? | 1157 |
| Landlord and Tenant | ? | 874 |
| Legal Aid | ? | 165 |
| Legal Professions | ? | 620 |
| Licensing | ? | 183 |
| Limitation | ? | 352 |
| Litigation Practice | ? | 1770 |
| Local Government | ? | 505 |
| Magistrates | ? | 267 |
| Media | ? | 294 |
| Natural Justice | ? | 87 |
| Negligence | ? | 396 |
| Northern Ireland | ? | 1211 |
| Nuisance | ? | 202 |
| Personal Injury | ? | 695 |
| Planning | ? | 733 |
| Police | ? | 385 |
| Prisons | ? | 233 |
| Professional Negligence | ? | 476 |
| Rating | ? | 115 |
| Reference | ? | 382 |
| Registered Land | ? | 80 |
| Road Traffic | ? | 434 |
| Scotland | ? | 5800 |
| Stamp Duty | ? | 11 |
| Taxes - Other | ? | 28 |
| Taxes Management | ? | 123 |
| Torts - Other | ? | 483 |
| Transport | ? | 390 |
| Trusts | ? | 250 |
| Undue Influence | ? | 63 |
| Utilities | ? | 66 |
| VAT | ? | 656 |
| Vicarious Liability | ? | 55 |
| Wills and Probate | ? | 277 |
| Last Update: 16 September 2004 | ||
The following are the court codes we use on lawindexpro. Please note that for older cases we will regularly not know which court actually head the case.
| Code | Court Name | Description |
| AdCt | Admiralty Court | A subdivision of the Queen's Bench Division, specialising in Shipping law. |
| Admn | Administrative Court (was Crown Office List) | Part of the Queen's Bench Division. Deals with many applications for judicial review. |
| Assz | Assizes | Former criminal courts |
| BC | Bankruptcy Court | |
| CA | Court of Appeal | The top division of the High Court. This court usually hears civil cases. |
| CACD | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | |
| CANI | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) | |
| Carc | Court of Arches | |
| CAT | Competition Appeal Tribunal | |
| CC | County Court, Chancery Court | |
| CCA | Court of Criminal Appeal (Now CACD) | |
| CCC | Central Criminal Court | The Old Bailey. A Crown Court |
| CCCR | Court of Crown Cases Reserved | |
| CCP | Court of Common Pleas | Now defunct. An ancient court |
| CEC | Court of Exchequer Chamber | |
| ChD | Chancery Division | |
| ChNI | Chancery Division - Northern Ireland | |
| CMAC | Courts Martial Appeal Court | Armed Forces Criminal Court of Appeal |
| CmpC | Companies Court | |
| COL | Crown Office List (Now Administrative Court) | |
| ComC | Commercial Court (Queen's Bench Division) | |
| ConC | Consistory Court | Ecclesiastical law |
| Crwn | Crown Court (Any area) | |
| CST | Care Standards Tribunal | |
| DC | Divisional Court (Division unspecified) | |
| DCC | Diocesan Consistory Court | |
| DPT | Data Protection Tribunal | |
| DR | Designs Right Registry | |
| EAT | Employment Appeal Tribunal | |
| ECFI | European Court, Court of First Instance | |
| ECHR | European Court of Human Rights | |
| ECJ | European Court of Justice | |
| EPC | European Patents Court | |
| ETMR | Europeam Trade Marks Registry | |
| ExP | Exchequer of Pleas | |
| FD | Family Division | |
| FDCS | First Division, Court of Session | |
| FdNI | Family Division - Northern Ireland | |
| FENI | Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland | |
| FSMT | Financial Services and Markets Tribunal | |
| HCJ | High Court of Justiciary (Scots Criminal Appeals) | |
| HL | House of Lords | |
| IAT | Immigration Appeals Tribunal | |
| ICCC | Irish Court of Crown Cases Reserved | |
| ICJ | International Court of Justice | |
| IHCS | Inner House Court of Session | |
| IoC | Visitors of the Inns of Court | |
| IT | Industrial Tribunal, Employment Tribunal | |
| KBD | King's Bench Division | |
| LCJ | Lord Chief Justice's Court | |
| LT | Lands Tribunal | |
| MCLC | Mayor and City of London County Court | |
| NIHC | High Court Northern Ireland | |
| NIIT | Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal | |
| NIRC | National Industrial Relations Court | |
| None | No court applicable or known | |
| OHCS | Outer House Court of Session | |
| OR | Official Referee's Court (see now TCC) | |
| PatC | Patents Court | |
| PC | Privy Council | |
| PCC | Patents County Court | |
| PO | Patents Office | |
| QBD | Queen's Bench Division | |
| QBNI | Queen's Bench Division - Northern Ireland | |
| RPC | Restrictive Trade Practices Court | |
| SC | Supreme Court (Practice directions Crown Courts) | |
| SCCO | Supreme Court Costs Office | |
| ScHC | High Court of Scotland - See HCJ | |
| SCIT | Special Commissioners of Income Tax | |
| SCJ | Supreme Court of Justice (PDs all civil courts) | |
| SCS | Scottish Court of Session (Inner or Outer) | |
| ScSf | Scottish Sheriff Court | |
| SDCS | Second Division, Court of Session (IHCS) not used | |
| SSAT | Social Security Appeals Tribunal | |
| SSC | Social Security Commissioner | |
| SSCS | Social Security and Child Support Commissioner | |
| TCC | Technology and Construction Court (was OR) | |
| TMR | Trade Marks Registry | |
| VCCS | Vacation Court, Court of Session | |
| VDT | VAT and Duties Tribunal | |
| Last Update: 16 September 2004 | ||
lawindexPro is a mixture of material created by us, and material created by others. We depend utterly upon those other resources, and are pleased to acknowledge and to thank them. This acknowledgement comes in two forms. First, simple gratitude for the work they are doing in making English Law available so freely, and, second, an acknowledgement of their legal rights.
Specifically (but there are others):
The exact nature and extent of some of these rights are certainly varied and perhaps also debatable. In designing and developing this database, I have had discussions with many people about these topics. I seem to be the most conservative or cautious of the lot. It is simple. We link to a provider only on terms which we think the provider should be happy with. There are four specific characteristics of our links:
As well as the courts, we use other software in putting the index together. Most important is the javascript routine we use for our menus. Again, thank you.
Above all, I express my deep gratitude to the many judge from all over the world who have taken their work seriously, and tries as best they can or could to extract justice from confusion. Some have managed it with particular grace and beuatiful language. Others show fierce and precise logic. We quote judges freely and regularly. Wgere we can we acknowledge the source of the words directly, but we do not always manage this. Sorry. One thing is quite clear form eth work undertaken in assembling our materials is thet many judges do themsleves assemble their judgments similarly, often quoting or reusing the words of earlier judges without direct acknowledgment. If anything that is the greatest flattery - a judge's words have simply become part of the law.
lawindexpro is a trading name of David Lewis Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG England
Tel: 0795 457 9992 or 01484 717380. email: ds@lawindexpro.co.uk
Copyright and Database Rights: David Swarbrick 2008. No copyright is asserted in any material subject to Crown, Parliamentary or other copyright. We give full and grateful acknowledgment to the many judges who have applied their learning, wisdom and literary skills to develop our laws, and whose words we have so freely borrowed.