Barrister AI for
Australian practitioners

AI for Australian barristers and solicitors: legal research grounded in Australian case law and legislation, and Briefs that map your matter, answer from its documents and draft from them.

Start free Book a demo

Card required for paid trial · Cancel anytime

500K+Cases indexed

20+Courts & tribunals

DailyUpdates

35K+Acts & instruments

High Court of AustraliaFederal CourtFull Federal CourtNSW Court of AppealVictorian Court of AppealQueensland Court of AppealWA Court of AppealSA Court of AppealFederal Circuit and Family CourtNSW Supreme CourtVictorian Supreme CourtFair Work CommissionAdministrative Review TribunalHigh Court of AustraliaFederal CourtFull Federal CourtNSW Court of AppealVictorian Court of AppealQueensland Court of AppealWA Court of AppealSA Court of AppealFederal Circuit and Family CourtNSW Supreme CourtVictorian Supreme CourtFair Work CommissionAdministrative Review Tribunal

From a legal question to a source-grounded answer

1. Question
2. Sources
3. Passages
4. Answer
Start with your question.
Set out the issue, facts and jurisdiction in your own words.
1. Question
2. Sources
3. Passages
4. Answer
Find the law behind it.
Search Australian cases, legislation and linked legal principles.
1. Question
2. Sources
3. Passages
4. Answer
See the passages that matter.
Keep each extract connected to its judgment, provision and pinpoint.
1. Question
2. Sources
3. Passages
4. Answer
Read the reasoning. Check the sources.
Follow the answer back to the authorities it relies on.

Research question

Does Blatch v Archer alter the civil burden of proof?

JudgmentNSW Court of Appeal

Hudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWCA 88

AuthorityKing's Bench

Blatch v Archer

(1774) 1 Cowp 63

LegislationNew South Wales

Evidence Act 1995

s 140 · Civil proceedings

Relevant treatmentHudson · [65]–[71]

The evidential principle informs how the available material may be weighed. It does not displace the legal burden or the civil standard of proof.

[65]–[71]

Short answerSources resolved

No.The legal burden does not shift.

The principle affects how evidence may be weighed. The court must still reach actual persuasion or reasonable satisfaction on the civil standard.

Primary authority

Hudson v Colliers[2026] NSWCA 88 · [65]–[71]

Open judgmentOpen provisionAsk the next question

Citations are live links to the exact paragraph

Clicking a pinpoint citation opens the cited judgment at that paragraph.

From answer to authority

One click to the cited paragraph.

Open the judgment exactly where the answer points, and read the passage in context.

From the answerEvery pinpoint is a link

The principle affects how evidence is weighed. It does not displace the legal burden or the civil standard of proof: Hudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 88 at [65].

Judgment · opened from the answerHudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWCA 88

Hudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd

NSW Court of Appeal · 20 May 2026 · Kirk JA, Bell CJ and Ward P agreeing

[63]

The appellant invoked the principle in Blatch v Archer: evidence is to be weighed according to the proof it was in the power of one side to have produced.

[64]

That principle is directed to the weighing of evidence. It informs the inferences properly open on the material before the court.

[65][65]

The principle in Blatch v Archer and connected principles do not alter the burden of proof. The civil onus requires an actual persuasion as to the claimed facts.

Cited passage · [65]

[66]

Nothing in the authorities suggests otherwise. The standard remains that fixed by s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

[67]

The appeal must therefore be approached on the footing that the onus lay throughout on the appellant.

Final paired benchmark · ten Australian matters

The claim, and the law behind it.

Barrister AI and Fable 5, the top-ranked model on LegalBench, the academic benchmark for legal reasoning, answered the same ten Australian-law matters. One scored higher — and backed its answers with far more cited authorities. The full record sets out every measure.

The claim

On the same ten matters, Barrister AI scored higher.

+10%higher on legal reasoning — a paired advantage of 6.05 rubric points

66.64Barrister AI60.59Fable 5

Higher on 80% of matters · paired t-test · t(9) = 3.194 · p = 0.0109

That's just the start

More authorities.

468authorities cited across the ten memos — Fable 5 cited 40

46.8 authorities per memovs 4.0

Same ten matters · counting cited authorities · volume, not a measure of accuracy

The verdict

Higher scores, with more law behind them.

11.7×the cited authorities of Fable 5, on the same ten matters468 vs 40 authority citations

Scores and citation counts from the same paired run · method, definitions and limitations in the record

Final paired result. The full record sets out the re-grade, definitions, limitations and the complete comparison table.Read the benchmark record

Paired benchmark result

Final paired benchmark scores across ten matters
Pipeline	Score
Barrister AI	66.64
Fable 5	60.59

Scores are benchmark points, not percentages. Barrister AI's paired advantage was 6.05 rubric points — it scored about 10% higher on legal reasoning than Fable 5 — and scored higher on 8 of 10 matters, or 80%. Paired t-test: t(9) = 3.194, p = 0.0109.

Cited authorities

Authorities cited across the same ten memos
Measure	Barrister AI	Fable 5
Authority citations	468	40
Authority citations per memo	46.8	4.0

On the same ten matters, Barrister AI cited 468 authorities across its ten memos to Fable 5's 40 — 11.7 times as many. That is a measure of how much cited law each answer put on the table, not of accuracy, and citation volume on its own is not evidence of legal quality. The full benchmark record sets out the grading, the citation-verification exercise, definitions, limitations and the complete comparison table.

Briefs: turn the documents in a matter into a Case Map, question them and draft from them

Briefs · Case Map
Upload the brief. Get the Case Map.
Add the documents in the matter. Barrister AI reads every page and sets out the issues, the parties, the contested facts and a sourced chronology.
Briefs · Customise
Make the map your own.
Say who each party is, add what the documents miss and remove what doesn’t matter. Your edits sit on top; the documents are never altered.
Briefs · Interrogate
Question the brief. Check every answer.
Answers cite the document and page, statute references are checked against Australian legislation, and one click opens the page.
Briefs · Create documents
Draft from the brief.
Chronologies, objections, submissions, advices and letters, built from the brief with its sources cited, then exported to Word.

BriefMarrow & Finch Joinery v Quillstone Holdings

14 documents

The tenant says a seven-day notice to replace the roof was never a reasonable time. The landlord says the breach justified re-entry on 11 August 2023.

PartiesMarrow & Finch JoineryQuillstone HoldingsDr Lena Park+4

Whether a seven-day notice allowed a reasonable time to replace the roof membrane.

Notice · p. 1Expert report · p. 14

Whether accepting rent after 2 August waived the breach.

Rent ledger · p. 3

Whether the tenant is entitled to relief against forfeiture.

Affidavit · p. 6

Party

Who is Quillstone Holdings?

Landlord · respondent

Served the notice to remedy on 2 August 2023 and re-entered the premises on 11 August. Mentioned in 9 documents.

Case MapEditing parties & chronology

Documents unchanged

Parties & actorsAdd a party or actor

Marrow & Finch Joinery Pty LtdTenant · applicant

Quillstone Holdings Pty LtdLandlord · respondent

Dr Lena ParkRoofing expert · tenant

Maya OseiSite manager for the tenantAdded by you

Your edits are kept apart from the documents, survive every update and can be reset to the documents at any time.

ChronologyAdd a chronology entry

DateEventSource

12 Mar 2021Lease of Unit 4 signedLease · p. 1

19 Jul 2023Tenant reports roof leakEmails · p. 4

2 Aug 2023Notice to remedy servedNotice · p. 1

2 Aug 2023Duplicate copy of the noticeNotice copy · p. 1Removed · Put back

11 Aug 2023Landlord re-enters premisesAffidavit · p. 6

14 Aug 2023Osei moves stock off siteAdded by you

DiscardSave changes

Ask this briefWas the notice to remedy valid?

Cites document & page

Was the notice to remedy valid?

Answer from the brief

Probably not, as a basis for re-entry. The notice gave seven days to replace the roof membrane¹, but the only expert evidence puts the work at four to six weeks². Re-entry is not enforceable unless the tenant fails to remedy the breach within a reasonable time after the notice³.

Did accepting rent waive the breach?Use as draft

Sources

Notice to remedy breach

p. 1

…replace the roof membrane within seven (7) days of service.

Expert report — Dr L. Park

p. 14

…replacement would take not less than four to six weeks.

Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)

s 129(1)Checked against legislation

Opened from source 2Expert report — Dr L. Park

p. 14

4.2The membrane has failed across roughly sixty per cent of the roof area.

4.3In my opinion, replacement would take not less than four to six weeks, weather permitting.

4.4Temporary patching is possible but would not remedy the defect.

Create a documentOutline of submissions

Drafting aid · export to Word

Draft · Outline of submissionsApplicant

Marrow & Finch Joinery Pty Ltd v Quillstone Holdings Pty Ltd

A. The notice did not allow a reasonable time

1.On 2 August 2023 the respondent served a notice requiring the roof membrane to be replaced within seven days.¹

2.The only expert evidence is that replacement would take not less than four to six weeks.²

3.A right of re-entry is not enforceable unless the lessee fails to remedy the breach within a reasonable time after the notice.³ Seven days was not a reasonable time.

¹Notice to remedy breach, p. 1.

²Expert report of Dr L. Park, p. 14 at [4.3].

³Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 129(1).

Edit in placeExport to Word (.docx)

Illustrative matter · Briefs is included with every paid plan

Analyse and interrogate Australian law, then keep your work in Notebook

1. Analyse
2. Ask
3. Save
See how the courts read a provision.
Read what the citing cases establish, where they differ and the authorities behind each point.
1. Analyse
2. Ask
3. Save
Ask about the passage in front of you.
Explore what it establishes and how it has been applied, with cited passages to check.
1. Analyse
2. Ask
3. Save
Keep the passage—and its source.
Highlight, annotate and file your research by matter or topic.

LegislationEvidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Current version

s 140

Civil proceedings: standard of proof

(1) In a civil proceeding, the court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.

s 140Citing judgments by subsection and phrase

What the citing cases establishEvery proposition linked to authority

Overview

Section 140(1) fixes one civil standard. Section 140(2) sets out matters the court must weigh in applying it.

s 140(1) · The standard

Satisfaction requires an actual persuasion — not a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities.

Briginshaw · 361–362Hudson · [68]

s 140(2)(c) · Gravity

The gravity of the matters alleged bears on the strength of evidence needed to reach satisfaction.

BriginshawNeat Holdings

“Balance of probabilities”

Cases construing the phrase apply a single standard; there is no third standard of proof.

Neat HoldingsHudson · [65]–[71]

CaseHudson v Colliers

[2026] NSWCA 88

Selected passage · [68]

[68] The principle in Blatch v Archer and connected principles do not alter the burden of proof. The civil onus requires an actual persuasion as to the claimed facts.

HighlightInterrogateNotebook

Ask this passage

Does [68] change the civil standard of proof?

Answer from the judgment and cited authorities

No. Paragraph [68] says the principle affects how evidence is evaluated; it does not shift the legal onus or create a different civil standard.

Cases relied on

Hudson v Colliers[2026] NSWCA 88 · [68]

Briginshaw v Briginshaw(1938) 60 CLR 336 · 361–362

NotebookEvidence · s 140 working note

Saved

Case · Hudson v Colliers

Save the passage with its source.

[68] The principle in Blatch v Archer does not alter the burden of proof.

HighlightSave to Notebook

ClippingsMy notes

Hudson v Colliers · [68]

Evidential reasoning may affect evaluation; it does not shift the legal burden.

Insert into note →

Working note

Burden remains with the party asserting the fact. Use with s 140 analysis.

[68]

The legal burden does not shift.

Highlight & memoranda

Keep the passage. Carry the authority.

Select the words that matter in a judgment, provision or memorandum. Highlight the passage or save it to Notebook with its source context attached. In a case, you can also annotate the selection or interrogate it. For the larger question, Barrister AI delivers a structured research memorandum with the authorities beside the analysis.

While you readHighlight in context

Illustrative case view

JudgmentHudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd[2026] NSWCA 88

[68] … the principle in Blatch v Archer and connected principles do not alter the burden of proof. …

Saved to NotebookEvidence · Hudson v Colliers · [68]

Barrister AIResearch memorandum

Illustrative extract

Date28 July 2026

ReBlatch v Archer and the civil burden of proof

Question presented

Does the principle in Blatch v Archer alter the legal burden in civil proceedings?

Short answer

No. The principle informs the evaluation of evidence. It does not shift the legal burden resting on the party who asserts the fact.

Analysis

[1] Where relevant records were within Colliers' control, Hudson still bore the burden of proving the facts on which his claim depended. The principle concerns what may be established from the available evidence; it does not alter that burden.

Primary authorityHudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWCA 88 · [65]–[68], [72]

Two ways to work with source law. Illustrative views of the Barrister AI research workspace.

Daily cases & headnotes

Start with the headnote. Open the decision.

Structured headnotes and a feed tailored to your practice. Open the full decision whenever you need it.

Your feed

Worked exampleNSW Court of Appeal · Example result

Hudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWCA 88

AI headnoteKirk JA · Bell CJ and Ward P agreeing

Mr Hudson sought unpaid commission under a deed of release. The Court allowed the appeal in part.

Held

The Westfield transaction remained the product of the appellant’s introduction. The primary judge erred in treating it as a different transaction. [57]–[60]

Confidentiality by design

Your research is private. Your identity stays separate.

In routine operations, your work is handled under a pseudonymous account reference. Your name and email remain behind a separate, restricted identity gate.

01Identity separatedRoutine staff access sees a pseudonymous reference—not your name or email.
02No model trainingOur model providers never train on your work — a standing commercial arrangement, on every tier.
03Controlled identity accessRoutine identity lookups require a specific reason and use a restricted, audit-logged support path.

Read how we protect your work Privilege in plain English

Purpose-built in Australia

Barrister AI is AI built by Barristers, for Australian law.

Read our mission statement

Your next question starts here

Powered by frontier intelligence, grounded in the law.

Start a 14-day Pro trial with $15 of research credit included every month. A card is required and the trial converts automatically unless cancelled.

Start free See pricing

Barrister AI for Australian practitioners

From a legal question to a source-grounded answer

Start with your question.

Find the law behind it.

See the passages that matter.

Read the reasoning. Check the sources.

Citations are live links to the exact paragraph

One click to the cited paragraph.

Paired benchmark result

Cited authorities

Briefs: turn the documents in a matter into a Case Map, question them and draft from them

Upload the brief. Get the Case Map.

Make the map your own.

Question the brief. Check every answer.

Draft from the brief.

Analyse and interrogate Australian law, then keep your work in Notebook

See how the courts read a provision.

Ask about the passage in front of you.

Keep the passage—and its source.

Hudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd

Barrister AI is AI built by Barristers, for Australian law.

Powered by frontier intelligence, grounded in the law.

Barrister AI for
Australian practitioners