Cases, statutes, flashcards, SBAQs, essays, careers and more, all in one place. Built by law students, for law students.
Your docket, calendar, grades and study streak, the moment you open Obiter, you know exactly what today looks like.
Store lecture notes, seminar prep and PDFs by module, then open any note in Obiter’s full editor and write, right there.
Timed, scenario-based questions written to exam standard, then a full session review showing exactly why each answer is right.
Exam-standard essay and problem questions across every module, each with a full model answer to learn from.
Case names, ratios and statute sections with spaced repetition, reveal the answer, rate yourself, move on.
Search any UK case, statute or concept. Material facts, legal issues, holding and reasoning, verified against primary sources.
Live UK legal roles and an application tracker that follows every application from saved to offer.
An AI assistant that answers from Obiter’s verified database, citing real cases and real statutes, never inventions.
B: Correct. Factual causation is the but-for test; the result would have occurred without the act. Authority: R v White [1910] 2 KB 124. A: Wrong, substantial cause is the legal-causation threshold, not factual.
Create a new problem or essay grounded in Obiter's verified database.
Bryn Interiors Ltd contracted with Fenwick & Vane Ltd, a serviced office operator, to fit out Fenwick's new Manchester building for £240,000…
Caring Horizons Ltd, a private company, operates Rowanbrook House, a residential care home in Westmere. Edith, aged 86…
"The resulting trust does not respond to what the transferor intended; it responds to what the transferor failed to intend."
The (fictitious) Secure Accommodation Act 2025 requires the Home Secretary to place asylum-seeker families…
Fertigo Ltd is a UK-incorporated agricultural chemicals manufacturer headquartered in Hull with production facilities at Immingham…
The (fictitious) Courts Funding Act 2024 empowers the Lord Chancellor by s 7(1) to "make by order such provision about fees…"
Nina Kovač, 47, has type 1 diabetes. On the evening of 19 April 2026 she takes her usual insulin dose but, distracted by a phone call…
Kristo is a journalist who, in October 2017, published a series of articles in a nationally circulated Ardovian newspaper…
Critically evaluate the claim that classical criminology and its contemporary rational choice descendants provide the most persuasive…
'The introduction of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 has rendered the Himalaya clause redundant as a mechanism…'
Greywick Storage Ltd operates a furniture warehouse in Salford. Its standard conditions include clause 12…
"The resulting trust does not respond to what the transferor intended; it responds to what the transferor failed to intend. Westdeutsche told us the opposite, and the law has been living with the contradiction ever since." Critically evaluate this statement in relation to presumed resulting trusts, automatic resulting trusts and the Quistclose trust.
The statement compresses thirty years of debate into two sentences, and both need unpacking. The first sentence states the thesis associated with R Chambers and adopted by Lord Millett in Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399: the resulting trust responds to the absence of an intention to benefit the recipient, not to any positive intention to create a trust. The second sentence accuses Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669 of asserting the contrary and the law of tolerating the inconsistency.
This essay argues for three propositions. First, the absence-based account is correct as a description of when resulting trusts arise, and the older presumption cases support it once the presumptions are recognised as evidential defaults rather than findings of actual intention. Secondly, the alleged contradiction with Westdeutsche is smaller than advertised: what Lord Browne-Wilkinson rejected was not absence-based reasoning but the restitutionary extension of it. Thirdly, the Quistclose trust, properly analysed through Lord Millett's speech in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12, is the absence thesis's hardest test and clearest vindication…
The House of Lords unanimously held that the company was a validly incorporated separate legal entity, entirely distinct from its members and directors. Salomon's secured debentures took priority over the unsecured creditors because the company, not Salomon, owed the debts. The fact that one person owned almost all the shares and was the directing mind did not collapse the distinction between the individual and the corporation.
Lord Halsbury LC emphasised that once a company is duly formed and registered, it is a body corporate with rights and liabilities of its own; the court cannot go behind the legal entity to investigate the motives of the incorporators. Lord Macnaghten stated that the company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the memorandum. There was no fraud or evasion of the law, Salomon's use of the corporate structure was entirely lawful.
Every AI tool in Obiter draws from a verified database of UK law, not the open web. No hallucinated cases, no invented statutes.
Every case is pre-briefed, researched and verified against primary sources. No scraping, no AI-generated source material.
SBAQs, essay questions and flashcards draw exclusively from this verified database, citing real cases and real statutes.
Because every response is anchored to verified data, you never get made-up cases or invented rules. Accuracy comes from the database, the AI just makes it faster.
Super impressed by Obiter. Really sad it wasn't around while I was at uni or studying the SQE, but happy for future law students. The software is seamless and well thought out.Anya, Trainee Solicitor
I legitimately miss it for the year I just completed without it. I'll definitely be using it for the SQE and careers.Isabel, PGDL student
I can't think of only one best thing, it's really the whole package. If I had to pick one word it would be organised. Obiter has everything a law student needs to stay focused and on track.Aysha, PGDL student
Start free, upgrade when you're ready.
No hidden fees. No commitments.
No, Obiter is a study platform for law students. It helps you learn and revise the law; it doesn't advise on real-world legal problems.
The LLB, GDL/PGDL and SQE preparation, with module coverage across core UK subjects.
Dashboard, calendar and study timer, manual flashcards, statute search and the Bulletin, free forever, no card required.
No. Every AI feature draws exclusively from Obiter's verified database of UK law, over 5,000 pre-briefed cases, so it cites real authorities, never inventions.
Download Obiter for Mac or Windows, or open it in your browser. Free to start, no card required.