Two halves of the same hour. Find out how the courts have decided a situation, then draft the instrument that follows from it — without leaving the screen or opening a precedent file from 2011.
Courts held: Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.
Type what happened in the words a client used. The facts of the situation are matched against the facts of the judgments, not against a keyword index — which is why "he changed the locks while she was abroad" finds anything at all.
The same box answers a question about the rule with the Act and the section that governs it, and the judgments that have applied it. It knows the difference between a fact pattern and a request for the law, and answers each in its own shape.
A proposition without a judgment behind it does not appear. Where the library does not answer, it says so and shows nothing — which is the harder behaviour to build and the only one worth having.
The coverage line is computed from the library itself and appears with every empty result, so "nothing matched" is never mistaken for "no such case exists".
Pick the instrument, answer the questions it asks, and the document comes out filled. Conditional sections appear only when they apply — a life interest, a guarantor, a minor accepting through a guardian.
Notarial attestations in the form a Registrar expects. Plaints and answers in the shape the Civil Procedure Code wants. Not an American precedent with the place names changed.
Where a drafter must insert something no interview can know — a plan number, a boundary — the template leaves a rule for it rather than inventing one. A template that guesses is more dangerous than one that asks.
Into the file you were going to open anyway. Nothing is trapped in the browser.
These are public court records, published by the courts and held behind a login - not on the open web. Anyone named in a judgment can ask what we hold and have it removed, free and without proving anything first.
Your name in a judgment →