Legal research is too fragmented, too slow, and too expensive
Commercial research platforms charge £100–£300+ per seat per month. Even then, you're searching one database at a time, cross-referencing manually, and spending hours on work that should take minutes. For small firms, sole practitioners, and legal aid organisations, the maths doesn't work.
And for the growing number of people navigating the legal system without a lawyer, professional research tools are completely out of reach.
Every citation verified against official sources.
A 2025 Stanford Law School study found that AI-assisted legal research tools can fabricate citations in up to 33% of queries — producing plausible-looking case references that simply do not exist.
Search the Law takes a fundamentally different approach. Every case citation in our outputs is verified against The National Archives’ court database before it reaches your document. Every statute reference is checked against legislation.gov.uk. If a citation can’t be verified, it doesn’t appear.
Source: Magesh et al., “Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools” (Stanford Law School, 2025). View the study →
Describe the issue. Get the authorities.
Enter your legal question in plain English or use standard legal terms — the search works either way. Results come back instantly from all 21 databases, ranked by court authority. For AI-powered research, citation network mapping, and Full Briefs, upgrade to a Professional or Chambers plan.
From legal issue to structured research
The Full Brief is our most comprehensive output — a multi-model, AI-generated document that maps the relevant case law on your research topic. It gives barristers and litigants the raw materials they need — with verified citations, balanced presentation, and no persuasive spin.
What you get
A 10-section document organising relevant case law around your legal issue, grounded in real case law from The National Archives and cross-referenced against 572,800+ citation pairs.
- Quick Read summary — the key points in 60 seconds
- Relevant legislation with section-level detail
- Leading authorities with citation network mapping
- Competing lines of authority in the case law
- Procedural considerations identified in the authorities
- Full neutral citations throughout
Available with Professional and Chambers plans. Uses 3 credits per document.
Case Law Research Report
Quick Read
| Key Threshold: | Conduct unfairly prejudicial to shareholder interests (s.994 CA 2006) |
| Strongest Authority: | O’Neill v Phillips [1999] UKHL 24 Applied |
| Key Uncertainty: | Scope of legitimate expectations in quasi-partnership companies |
1. Verified Authority
| Authority | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| O’Neill v Phillips [1999] UKHL 24 | House of Lords | Good law • 847 citations |
| Re Saul D Harrison [1995] 1 BCLC 14 | Court of Appeal | Good law • 312 citations |
| Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries [1973] AC 360 | House of Lords | Distinguished on scope |
2. Governing Legal Framework
Companies Act 2006, Part 30 (ss.994–999) provides the statutory framework. The court may make such order as it thinks fit under s.996, including a share purchase order. The petition must be brought in the Companies Court of the Business and Property Courts (CPR Part 49).
3. How Courts Have Approached This Issue
The House of Lords in O’Neill v Phillips Applied held that unfairness must be assessed objectively, requiring conduct that departs from the basis on which the parties agreed the company would be run. The Court of Appeal in Grace v Biagioli [2006] 2 BCLC 70 Not followed departed from this on the narrower point of legitimate expectations…
Every result comes from an official public database
All data is retrieved in real time under open government licences. Hover over any source to see what it contains.
Find Case Law
legislation.gov.uk
Tribunals Decisions
Hansard
Employment Tribunals
GOV.UK Guidance
Tax Tribunal
UTAAC
HMRC Manuals
CPS Guidance
ICO Decisions
Commons Library
Law Commission
SC Press Summaries
Privy Council
The Gazette
Financial Ombudsman
Scottish Courts
Competition Tribunal
SRA Decisions
IPO Decisions
Dashed-border sources link to external databases. All other data is retrieved directly via official APIs.
Built for legal professionals. Free for everyone.
Whatever your role, Search the Law replaces the expensive subscriptions and tedious multi-database searches that slow you down.
Solicitors and barristers
One search queries 21 official databases. The Full Brief reads the judgments and maps the authorities for you — with every citation verified against the original court record. Research that saves hours, not just money.
Small practices and sole practitioners
Professional-grade research without the five-figure annual contract. The Professional plan gives you unlimited search and AI-powered research for less than the cost of a single hour’s billing. Chambers gives your team 3 seats and 20 credits per month.
Legal aid and advice organisations
Equip caseworkers with instant access to case law, legislation, and AI-powered research tools. Do more with less — without compromising on research quality.
Self-representing litigants
Access the same legal databases that professionals use, with results explained in plain English. The free tier exists because access to the law should never depend on ability to pay.
One search. Seventeen databases. Every citation verified.
Type a question in plain English or formal legal terms. In seconds, you get case law, legislation, tribunal decisions, parliamentary debates, and government guidance — all from official sources, all in one place.
17 databases, one query
Find Case Law, legislation.gov.uk, Hansard, Employment Tribunals, HMRC Manuals, CPS Guidance, ICO Decisions, and more — searched simultaneously. No need to check each source separately.
AI research grounded in real judgments
Research Reports and Full Briefs read the actual judgment text, surfaces the court's reasoning, and maps how authorities treat each other. Every citation is verified against the original court record — nothing is fabricated.
Citation network mapping
572,800+ citation pairs mapped and classified. See at a glance whether a case has been applied, distinguished, or overruled — with the judicial language to back it up.
£39.99/month. Cancel any time.
No annual lock-in. No per-seat surprises. Professional-grade research at a price that works for sole practitioners, small firms, and legal aid organisations. Free tier available for everyone.
Legal research & analysis
The BSB's AI Guidance: What It Actually Requires of Barristers
The Bar Standards Board's first dedicated AI guidance bans nothing and blesses nothing - it applies existing duties to a new instrument. Wha...
After Mazur: Six Questions Every Firm Running a Paralegal Delegation Model Needs to Answer Now
The Court of Appeal restored the delegation model — but left the boundaries undefined. A cross-analysis of six key authorities maps the fram...
The Employment Rights Act 2025: A Practitioner’s Guide to What’s Changing and Why It Matters
Every deadline, every new right, every case law implication — unfair dismissal from six months, uncapped compensation, fire-and-rehire banne...