Barrister AI for
Australian practitioners

AI-powered legal research for Australian barristers and solicitors, grounded in Australian case law, legislation and linked legal principles.

Start free Book a demo

Card required for paid trial · Cancel anytime

0+Cases analysed

0Courts & tribunals

DailyUpdates

0+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

Ask
Ask a legal question in your own words.
Include the issue, facts and jurisdiction—just as you would in a brief.
Retrieve
Barrister AI finds the law that bears on it.
It searches Australian cases, legislation and linked legal principles—not a model’s memory.
Identify
It identifies the relevant passages in context.
The judgment, provision, court and pinpoint stay attached to every extract.
Answer
You get a reasoned answer with the authorities beside it.
Every material proposition links back to source law, so you can inspect the reasoning yourself.

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.

Citations are live

Click a pinpoint. The judgment opens at that paragraph.

References are live links — one click opens the cited judgment at the exact paragraph relied on, so you can check the authority for yourself.

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.

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

Analyse
Smarter legislation.
Barrister AI reads the citing decisions and distils the propositions they establish, their qualifications and any divergence—with every point linked to authority.
Interrogate
Ask a question of the source in front of you.
Select a paragraph, case or provision. Ask what it establishes, how it has been applied or whether it has been doubted. The answer cites the exact passages.
Notebook
Save the law. Build your working record.
Highlight cases and legislation, add annotations and file passages by matter or topic so your research is ready to use.

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

New cases, already organised for your practice.

Each day, Barrister AI processes new Australian decisions, writes a structured headnote for each case and places the relevant ones into a feed tailored to your practice areas.

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 AIbuilt 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 $30 in research credit. 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

Ask a legal question in your own words.

Barrister AI finds the law that bears on it.

It identifies the relevant passages in context.

You get a reasoned answer with the authorities beside it.

Citations are live links to the exact paragraph

Click a pinpoint. The judgment opens at that paragraph.

Paired benchmark result

Cited authorities

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

Smarter legislation.

Ask a question of the source in front of you.

Save the law. Build your working record.

Hudson v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd

Barrister AI is AIbuilt by Barristers,for Australian law.

Powered by frontier intelligence, grounded in the law.

Barrister AI for
Australian practitioners