A chronology built from the documents, and authorities you can put before a judge.

Load the bundle into the matter, build the chronology and the claim chart, and check every authority against the source before it goes near a skeleton argument.

Litigation and disputes

Start free Book a 20-minute walkthrough

No credit card required

Agents · Contract Agent · Employment Contract Compliance ReviewCompleted

6 items need your confirmation14 authorities · Where we looked

Senior Associate Employment Contract: English Law Review

Summary

1.
Clause 9(c), non-competeHigh
The 12-month prohibition on working for any law firm anywhere in the UK, Ireland or EU, in any capacity, is almost certainly wider than reasonably necessary and therefore unlikely to be enforceable.
Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32
2.
Clause 11, data and monitoringHigh
Blanket contractual consent is not an adequate basis for general employment processing, special-category data or unrestricted monitoring.
UK GDPR, Arts 6 and 9
3.
Clause 4, holiday carry-overHigh
The unconditional five-day cap conflicts with mandatory carry-over rights where sickness, statutory leave or employer failure prevents leave being taken.
Working Time Regulations 1998, regs 13 to 13A

A claim chart: each element of the cause of action pin-cited to the evidence that supports it.

Before

Three lever-arch files for a matter like Castlebrook Ltd's director-liability claim, and somebody has to build the chronology by hand before anyone can draft the claim chart.

A privilege log has to separate legal advice privilege from litigation privilege from without-prejudice correspondence, and getting it wrong is not a redo, it is a waiver.

Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank happened because a general assistant put a fabricated authority in front of a court. Litigation is the practice area that cannot absorb that mistake.

After

The Chronology Builder reads the pleadings, statements and correspondence on a Castlebrook-shaped file and produces a dated chronology, flagging the gaps and the conflicts rather than smoothing over them.

The privilege-log workflow classifies each document and produces the log in PD 57AD form, flagging the borderline calls for a human rather than deciding them.

The skeleton comes back Court-Ready: numbered paragraphs, OSCOLA citations, and every authority checked against Find Case Law or BAILII before you press Verify all.

A litigator at a lectern addressing the bench in a modern courtroom.

Grounded on the matter

The pleadings, statements and exhibits go into the matter, and the Litigation & Disputes Agent's sub-agents read them, not a general account of how a director-liability claim usually runs. Fact Verification cross-references what a witness statement claims against the correspondence actually in the file.

See how matters work

Matters · Project Halcyon · SPA warranties and disclosureOpen

Project Halcyon: SPA warranties and disclosure

Buy-side warranty review, disclosure analysis and cited due-diligence grid.

Client: Halcyon Bidco Ltd
Reference: WC-2026-0412
Practice area: Corporate / M&A
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Responsible partner: E. Vance

No conflict check on file.

Chat, on this matter

Compare warranties with the disclosure letter.

Three high-priority exceptions require action: the unregistered charge, the change-of-control right and the tribunal claim.

Send a message… (@ to mention tools)BalancedPrepare for

25 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Chat
21 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Run · completed · 560 credits
18 Aug
Project Halcyon: Disclosure Letter
Document · indexed
16 Aug
Project Halcyon: Share Purchase Agreement
Document · indexed
4 Aug
Matter opened
Opened

The matter for a disputed claim, with the conflict check and a restricted matter flagged.

A memo, not a chat

The claim chart goes element by element for each cause of action, evidence pin-cited, gaps visible, the counter-position stated. It comes back as a Word document with a Next actions section, not a conversation you have to turn into one.

See the review grid

Document Review · Hartwell matter · contract screen0/12 filled

Document	Parties and effective dateTEXT	Term and renewalTEXT	Limitation of liabilityTEXT	Governing lawTEXT
nda-hartwell-meridian.txt
saas-agreement-northgate.txt
board-minutes-hartwell.txt

A claim chart, each element pin-cited to the witness statement that supports it.

Verified, then shareable

Twelve authorities on a skeleton, ten verified against Find Case Law and legislation.gov.uk, one needing a check, one not found. You drop the one, correct the pinpoint, and sign the acknowledgement that sits on the register.

See how verification works

Authorities · 14 · Where we looked

#	Reference	Source	Verdict
1	Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32	—	not yet checked
2	Working Time Regulations 1998 SI 1998/1833, regs 4 to 5, 10 to 14	—	not yet checked
3	Coppage v Safety Net Security Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1176	—	not yet checked
4	UK GDPR, Articles 6 and 9 Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679	—	not yet checked
5	Employment Rights Act 1996, s 1 c 18	—	not yet checked
6	Harlow v Artemis International [2008] EWHC 1126 (QB)	—	not yet checked

Twelve authorities on a skeleton argument, each carrying its own verdict.

Named, not generic.

Each agent is built for one kind of work, carries its own protocols and returns the same six-tab run. These are the ones this desk reaches for.

What a run costs.

A chronology run and a claim chart are both metered in credits against the matter, so the cost of getting to a skeleton is visible before the bundle is filed.

See pricing

What you will say before you try it.

Fabricated authorities are the exact risk Ayinde and Al-Haroun put on the record.: Agents fetch from an approved list of public sources, a quoted passage must appear verbatim in the retrieved page, and the Litigation & Disputes Agent keeps the Source Freshness Check as well as the citation verifier, because good-law status is existential in contentious work.
Privilege cannot be un-disclosed.: The Privilege Review check runs on the contentious agent's output, and privileged or without-prejudice material is flagged rather than reproduced. The privilege-log workflow flags borderline calls for a human instead of deciding them.
We are not sending anything the tool drafts.: Nothing is sent by the product. Pre-action demands and all outbound correspondence are send-gated: you get the draft and an explicit notice that it has not gone anywhere.

Nearby desks.

Start free

Build a chronology from one of your own bundles.

Ten minutes, no card. Load one bundle and ask for the dated chronology first.

Start free Book a 20-minute walkthrough