Intelligent AI
Purpose-built legal intelligence, constrained by verified Australian case law.
Grounded in Verified Authority
The AI is grounded in a curated library of verified Australian credit hire case law. It cannot access the internet or invent authority. Every response is constrained by what is in the knowledge base.
Cases include the High Court decision in Arsalan v Rixon; Nguyen v Cassim [2021] HCA 40, along with Lazicic v Rossi [2024] NSWSC 777 and McKnight v Miller [2025], each with verified citations, key principles, and practical conclusions. Where an English decision is mentioned, it is flagged as persuasive only in Australia, with AustLII authorities primary.
Three Independent Safety Layers
Knowledge-Base Constraint
AI can only cite cases that exist in the verified library. The system prompt strictly prohibits inventing or approximating authority.
Citation Verification
Every case name and citation in the AI output is cross-checked against the verified database before it reaches you.
Refusal to Generate
If no supporting authority exists, the system refuses to generate a response rather than guess. Silence is preferred to invention.
How It Differs From Generic AI
This is not ChatGPT with a legal prompt. It is a specialist system that will say "I don't have authority for that" rather than invent an answer.
Generic AI tools will happily fabricate case names, invent citations, and present fiction as fact. CreditHire Assist is designed from the ground up to refuse rather than hallucinate.
Generic AI
"In Smith v Jones [2023] NSWSC 456, the court held that..." (fabricated)
CreditHire Assist
"No supporting authority is present in the knowledge base for this proposition."