Murphy v Acme Ltd: From upload to hearing brief in under 3 minutes
An anonymised walkthrough of how CaseDesk handles a real unfair dismissal case structure — from raw documents to a fully prepared hearing brief.
Case Overview
Documents uploaded
The solicitor uploads 12 documents: a dismissal letter, employment contract, 6 months of payslips, a witness statement, an HR email chain, and the draft WRC submission.
- All 12 documents auto-categorised by type
- Key facts extracted: employment start date, salary, job title, dismissal date
- One-paragraph AI summary generated for each document
- Total upload and processing time: 47 seconds
Dismissal Letter
Termination · 2 pages
Employment Contract
Contract · 8 pages
Payslips (6 months)
Financial · 6 documents
Witness Statement
Statement · 3 pages
HR Email Chain
Correspondence · 14 emails
WRC Submission Draft
Submission · 5 pages
Chronology auto-generated
Within seconds of processing, CaseDesk builds a complete timeline from all uploaded documents, colour-coded by party.
- 23 events extracted across all documents
- Gap detected: 15 Feb — 13 Mar (28 days with no documentation)
- Events linked to source documents — click to open at the relevant section
- Gap flagged for adjudicator attention
12 Jan 2024
Employment commenced
Employer02 Feb 2024
Verbal warning issued (only warning on record)
Employer15 Feb — 13 Mar
NO DOCUMENTATION — 28 day gap
Gap14 Mar 2024
Dismissal letter sent — cites 'repeated warnings'
Employer21 Mar 2024
WRC complaint filed (UD claim)
Claimant3 contradictions detected
The contradiction detector scans every document against every other document and surfaces conflicts with severity ratings.
- CRITICAL: Dismissal letter references 'repeated warnings' — only one verbal warning exists in the file
- SIGNIFICANT: Contract requires 4-week notice period — dismissal was immediate with no notice
- MINOR: Job title listed as 'Sales Executive' on contract but 'Account Manager' on payslips
“Repeated warnings” claim vs single warning on record
Dismissal Letter p.2 ¶3 contradicts HR Email Chain (02/02/2024)
Recommendation: Exploit in cross-examination. This is the central weakness in the employer's case.
Contract notice period not honoured
Contract §12.1 requires 4 weeks — termination was immediate
Job title inconsistency
Contract §1.2 vs Payslip headers — note but low priority
Precedents matched
The WRC Precedent Engine matches Murphy v Acme Ltd against 12,847 published decisions and surfaces the closest comparables.
- Top match: ADJ-00034521 (94% similarity) — single warning, insufficient process, €18,200 awarded
- 2 of top 3 matches resulted in awards to the claimant
- Average award in comparable cases: €14,800
- Key pattern: adjudicators consistently penalise 'repeated warnings' claims unsupported by documentation
Hearing brief generated
CaseDesk generates a one-page hearing brief and war-games the case. The solicitor walks into the hearing with everything indexed and ready.
- One-page brief: core claim, key contradiction, strongest precedent, documents to watch
- War-game: 5 likely adjudicator questions generated with suggested responses
- Witness preparation: 3 questions the claimant's witness should expect
- Submission draft: WRC-formatted, every claim cited, legislation auto-inserted
One-Page Hearing Brief
War-Game: Top Adjudicator Question
“Can the employer produce any written warnings prior to the dismissal letter?”
Suggested response: No written warnings exist. The sole documented warning is a verbal warning from 02/02/2024. The dismissal letter's reference to “repeated warnings” is unsupported by the employer's own records.
Result
In 2 minutes and 15 seconds, CaseDesk transformed 12 unstructured documents into a fully prepared case file with indexed documents, a complete chronology, 3 flagged contradictions, matched precedents, and a one-page hearing brief.
2:15
Total time
3
Contradictions
94%
Top precedent match