Res Ipsa

Semantic search over English (England & Wales) case law — for overseas / comparative research. IMPORTANT: results are FOREIGN authority — persuasive only in New Zealand, never binding (the sole exception is a Privy Council decision on a New Zealand appeal). The material only partially represents the activities of the courts and tribunals. Steer intent with topic: all (default), facts, issues, law, reasoning, or outcome. Returns the best-matching passage per case with its citation, court, date and a deep link.

englandwales_search_case_law

Everything a New Zealand case's citation record shows — whether or not we hold its full judgment. Resolves any identifier, then returns the citer count, treatment breakdown, what the case is cited for, its top citing authorities, any limiting/negative treatments, and (when the full judgment is not in our database) a coverage note. Never dead-ends on a case we do not hold.

nz_case_dossier

Find the New Zealand cases that interpret a statute provision, ranked interpretation-first then by authority. Returns one row per case with interpreted_for — a machine-extracted summary of what the case was CITED AS interpreting (a paraphrase, NOT the court's own words; verify against the judgment before quoting) — plus the sections it touched, its citation and citer count. Input: an act name (e.g. 'Sentencing Act 2002') and optionally a section to narrow to (e.g. 's 27').

nz_cases_on_provision

Is this New Zealand case still good law? Returns a treatment breakdown (applied / distinguished / overruled), a currency verdict, an appeal-posture note, and read_these — the specific later cases that overruled, reversed-on-appeal, distinguished, or did not follow it. The verdict is a LEAD, not a ruling, and is bounded by our database: counts and any 'no negative treatment' finding are over the judgments we hold, never the whole law — absence is not proof of currency. good_law_status is our calibrated reading of the case's citation record (good / doubted / appealed / overruled / unknown); 'unknown' means currency is NOT established. Read the read_these cases to confirm. Input: a case identifier — a case_id (e.g. NZSC-2010-20), a neutral citation ([2010] NZSC 20), a report citation, or a party name.

nz_good_law

Find New Zealand judgments that discuss or interpret a specific statutory provision identified by Act title, section reference, or both. This is an exact-reference authority lookup using direct citation matching, not semantic search and not AI filtering. **When to Use This Tool:** - User provides a specific Act title, section, or combined statutory reference - You need cases interpreting a precise provision rather than broad legislation research - Do not use for broad statutory topic research; use nz_search_legislation or nz_search_case_law with authorityStatutes instead **Query Guidance:** - Include both Act title and section when possible - Tune similarityThreshold if the first pass is empty or noisy **Examples:** - Good: "Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 s 50" - BAD: "contract law" **Citing results:** - Every result includes a `webURL` pointing at the Res Ipsa library page for that case (e.g. https://app.resipsa.ai/cases/NZSC-2014-147). - When surfacing a hit to the user, cite it as a markdown link: `[<citation text>](<webURL>)`. Use the result's `citation` or `caseName` field as the link text — fall back to the `caseId` if those are absent. - Never fabricate or guess a URL: only use `webURL` values returned by this tool. If a result has no `webURL` (older record, or links not configured), cite as plain text without a link.

nz_find_authorities_by_statute_reference

Find a specific New Zealand judgment/case by neutral citation, court file number, or party name using fuzzy matching on verified NZLSG citations. This is a direct database lookup tool only; it does not use semantic search or AI filtering. **When to Use This Tool:** - User gives a case citation and wants the exact judgment/case - User names the parties and wants to identify the case - You need to resolve a likely case before doing broader case-law analysis - You need to identify the exact judgment before using nz_find_authorities_by_case_citation to retrieve later citing cases - An initial search result or case summary mentions another case and you need to check whether that cited case exists in our database so you can attach the correct citation link **Query Guidance:** - Best for exact or near-exact case identifiers, citations, or party names - Start with the default similarity threshold, but feel free to lower it if no results are returned or raise it if the first pass is too noisy - Do not use this for topical legal research; use the broader case-law search tool for that - Do not use this when the user wants later judgments discussing a case; use nz_find_authorities_by_case_citation for that - This tool resolves NEUTRAL citations (e.g. [2014] NZSC 147), COURT FILE NUMBERS (the unreported / pre-neutral-citation handle, e.g. CA176/93, CIV-2008-404-991, CRI-2008-086-402), and PARTY NAMES against the judgments held in our database. It is NOT a reported-/law-report-citation lookup: a report-series citation (e.g. [2015] 1 NZLR 432 — the NZLR / NZAR / CRNZ / BCL etc. series) may fail to resolve or return an INCORRECT match. If you only have a report citation, supply the party name instead, or the neutral citation if you can derive it. **Examples:** - Good: "Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2014] NZSC 147" - Good: "Firm PI v Zurich" - Good: "[2014] NZSC 147" - Good: "CIV-2008-404-991" (court file number — resolves unreported / pre-neutral-citation cases) - BAD: "termination for convenience in contracts" - BAD: "[2015] 1 NZLR 432" (law-report citation — supply the neutral citation or party name; report-series cites are not reliably resolved here) **Citing results:** - Every result includes a `webURL` pointing at the Res Ipsa library page for that case (e.g. https://app.resipsa.ai/cases/NZSC-2014-147). - When surfacing a hit to the user, cite it as a markdown link: `[<citation text>](<webURL>)`. Use the result's `citation` or `caseName` field as the link text — fall back to the `caseId` if those are absent. - Never fabricate or guess a URL: only use `webURL` values returned by this tool. If a result has no `webURL` (older record, or links not configured), cite as plain text without a link.

nz_find_judgment_by_citation

Find a case's subsequent treatment — New Zealand judgments that cite, apply, distinguish, or otherwise discuss a specific case identified by citation or party name. This is an exact-reference authority lookup using direct citation matching, not semantic search and not AI filtering. **When to Use This Tool:** - User provides a specific case citation or party name and wants later judgments that discuss it - You already resolved the target case and need authorities that cite or apply it - Do not use for broad topical research; use nz_search_case_law instead **Query Guidance:** - Provide the most specific citation or party-name reference available - Tune similarityThreshold if the first pass is empty or noisy **Examples:** - Good: "Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2014] NZSC 147" - BAD: "cases about insurance law" **Citing results:** - Every result includes a `webURL` pointing at the Res Ipsa library page for that case (e.g. https://app.resipsa.ai/cases/NZSC-2014-147). - When surfacing a hit to the user, cite it as a markdown link: `[<citation text>](<webURL>)`. Use the result's `citation` or `caseName` field as the link text — fall back to the `caseId` if those are absent. - Never fabricate or guess a URL: only use `webURL` values returned by this tool. If a result has no `webURL` (older record, or links not configured), cite as plain text without a link.

nz_find_authorities_by_case_citation

The leading NZ cases on a topic, returned as THREE distinct axes — not one blended rank — because 'leading' means different things. cited_authorities: the foundational/most-cited cases (weighted by how distinctively later judgments cite them on this topic; procedural workhorses filtered out). on_point_recent: recent on-point judgments too new to have accumulated citations (semantic match over the cases' own text, senior-court-first; excludes anything already in cited_authorities). controlling: the single most-recent senior-court (Supreme Court, then Court of Appeal) case cited as authority on this point — the current binding statement, which can differ from the foundational case (null if none). Each case carries court, year, topical citers, citation velocity, trend (rising/steady/fading), what it's cited for, and a good-law verdict — so you can weigh a foundational-but-fading case against a recent-and-rising one. Input: a natural-language description of the legal topic/issue.

nz_leading_authority

Rank a SET of New Zealand cases by legal authority. Does NO retrieval — pass identifiers from a search/authority tool (or anywhere); each may be a case_id, neutral or report citation, or party name. Returns, per case, the citer count (standing), court, year, citation velocity (citers/yr, age-normalised), trend (rising/steady/fading), and a still-good-law verdict — sorted by authority. Every raw measure is returned so you can re-rank (e.g. by velocity for the current controlling case rather than the most-cited historical one). Up to 25 cases per call.

nz_rank_authorities

Search New Zealand case law semantically to find judgments by topic, factual pattern, legal principle, or broader authority themes. Use this when the user needs research by meaning, not an exact citation or section reference. **When to Use This Tool:** - Find case law precedents or judicial decisions - Understand how courts have interpreted legal principles - Locate authoritative case law on specific legal topics **Search Types:** - factualProcedural (similar facts): Full case context (facts, issues, findings, ratio, disposition). Use for factually analogous judgments and fuller case summaries. - legalPropositions (legal propositions): Atomic legal principles/tests with supporting authority and quotes. Use for governing principles, ratios, and legal tests. - authorityCases (leading cases): How cases are cited and treated by later courts. Use for broader precedent research or to identify leading authorities on a topic. - authorityStatutes (statute interpretation): How courts interpret statutory provisions. Use for broader authority research about legislation when the user has not provided a precise Act-and-section reference. **Query Guidance:** - Use semantic queries: Formulate queries using natural, descriptive language - Be specific: The more detailed the query, the better the results. Instead of "contract law", ask "termination for convenience in commercial contracts" - If the user provides an exact case citation or party name and wants later authorities on that case, use nz_find_authorities_by_case_citation instead - If the user provides an exact Act/section reference and wants cases interpreting that provision, use nz_find_authorities_by_statute_reference instead **Examples:** - Good (factualProcedural): "How have courts handled termination for convenience disputes in commercial contracts?" - Good (legalPropositions): "What is the legal test for determining repudiation in contract law?" - Good (authorityCases): "What are the leading authorities on good faith in commercial contracts?" - Good (authorityStatutes): "How have courts approached cancellation rights under the Contract and Commercial Law Act?" - Use nz_find_authorities_by_case_citation instead for exact-reference queries like "Has Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2014] NZSC 147 been followed?" - Use nz_find_authorities_by_statute_reference instead for exact statutory-reference queries like "Cases interpreting s 50 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017" - BAD: "contract law" - too vague; doesn't specify what aspect of contract law or what type of information is needed. Use a complete question instead. **Citing results:** - Every result includes a `webURL` pointing at the Res Ipsa library page for that case (e.g. https://app.resipsa.ai/cases/NZSC-2014-147). - When surfacing a hit to the user, cite it as a markdown link: `[<citation text>](<webURL>)`. Use the result's `citation` or `caseName` field as the link text — fall back to the `caseId` if those are absent. - Never fabricate or guess a URL: only use `webURL` values returned by this tool. If a result has no `webURL` (older record, or links not configured), cite as plain text without a link.

nz_search_case_law