Incident Tracker
17 verified incidents · as of 2026-09-04
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)Before the First-tier Tax Tribunal, self-represented appellant Omar Rafique sent emails citing multiple non-existent authorities that Judge Bailey found were AI-generated and unreviewed. The tribunal refused to reinstate his struck-out appeal and declined to issue a contempt summons, warning him against relying on AI-hallucinated cases in any future proceedings.
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.
2026-03-09Dismissal
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; Employment Judge Armstrong found the authorities did not exist, disregarded them, and dismissed her disability and unfair-dismissal complaints.
2026-01-30Warning
Professional Standards Authority v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor, [2026] EWHC 141 (Admin)In the High Court (Administrative Court), unregulated representative Simon Holborn cited three authorities partly generated by Microsoft Copilot whose quotations were fabricated. Griffiths J warned him of contempt but, as a struck-off solicitor, he could not be referred to a regulator. The Authority's appeal succeeded and the nurse's suspension became a striking-off.
2026-01-29Dismissal
Folarin v Immigration Services Commissioner, [2026] UKFTT 135 (GRC)Before the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), immigration adviser Raphael Folarin, appealing the loss of his registration, cited multiple non-existent authorities obtained by asking ChatGPT for supporting cases and editing summaries he never verified. The tribunal dismissed his appeal, finding the fabricated citations confirmed his unfitness, and noted such conduct may amount to contempt.
SafeLegalAIrecords: safelegalai.com/tracker/uk · CC BY 4.0