Incident Tracker
19 verified incidents · as of 2026-09-21
2026-09-17Warning
Hancox v Sutherland and others [2026] EAT 139In the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal, an appellant filed a 300-page ChatGPT skeleton argument without checking accuracy or procedural compliance. No reliance was placed on it at the hearing. The tribunal warned that similar filings could be rejected or sanctioned; it allowed one appeal ground to proceed without finding specific fabricated authorities in this document.
2026-08-25Strike-off / disbarment
SRA v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (SDT)In the United Kingdom, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Registered Foreign Lawyer Abhishek Kumar off the register after he used generative AI to file false citations and misleading quotations in his defence to SRA proceedings, then used AI again in an attempted explanation that contained further errors.
2026-07-24Costs order
Lodhia v Twelve Trees, [2026] EWHC 1889 (KB)Linden J in the High Court of England and Wales found that a litigant in person had fabricated or doctored documents and rejected his claim that they were AI hallucinations. The court imposed indemnity costs and a three-year civil restraint order, and referred him to the Attorney General and his barrister to the Bar Standards Board.
2026-07-08Other
Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania, [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin)In the High Court (Administrative Court), the Crown Prosecution Service filed extradition submissions citing two non-existent authorities, Vlad v Romania and Jeziorski v Poland, that the CPS later accepted likely originated from AI. The error was caught before the hearing; the appeal was dismissed on its merits and the CPS reviewed 78 other cases.
2026-05-22Regulatory referral
Cork & Anor v Smith, [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch)In the High Court (Insolvency and Companies List), Pinsent Masons LLP quoted a fabricated version of Insolvency Rule 12.37(5) — text that does not exist — after a junior solicitor used an AI system that hallucinated the provision. The firm self-referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and agreed to pay the clients' costs of the erroneous correspondence.
2026-05-06Dismissal
Rafique v Commissioners for HMRC, [2026] UKFTT 673 (TC)In the UK First-tier Tax Tribunal, self-represented appellant Omar Rafique sent AI-generated emails containing incorrect citations and unsupported legal propositions, including misuse of real authorities. The tribunal refused to reinstate his struck-out appeal and declined to issue a contempt summons, warning that he must verify both a case's existence and what it supports.
2026-05-05Dismissal
Tuyunuklu v Akmal, [2026] UKUT 174 (LC)Before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), unrepresented appellant Hakan Tuyunuklu relied on Rakusen v Jepson for a proposition the Supreme Court never decided. Judge Elizabeth Cooke dismissed his rent-repayment-order appeal and, noting references to AI in the hearing transcript, said she suspected he had been misled by an AI hallucination.
2026-03-09Other
Green v Imprint Creative Print Solutions Ltd, 1809293/2024Before the Leeds Employment Tribunal, self-represented claimant Ms F Green emailed submissions citing case law that neither the tribunal nor the respondent's counsel could identify. She accepted she had used AI to generate them; the tribunal found the authorities did not exist and disregarded them. It dismissed her protected-disclosure and unfair-dismissal complaints but upheld her reasonable-adjustments claim.
SafeLegalAIrecords: safelegalai.com/tracker/uk · CC BY 4.0 · not advice · no warranty