Incident Tracker / United Kingdom
Professional Standards Authority v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor, [2026] EWHC 141 (Admin)
·High Court of England and Wales (King's Bench Division, Administrative Court)·UKWarning
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.
- Court
- High Court of England and Wales (King's Bench Division, Administrative Court)
- Date
- 2026-01-30
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- Microsoft Copilot
- Conduct
- An unregulated representative acting for the second respondent filed written argument partly generated by Microsoft Copilot, citing three authorities (Fatnani, Gupta and Ghosh) whose purported quotations were fabricated and which did not support his propositions. He admitted the references were phantoms created by AI.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-16
What was fabricated or misused
- Fatnani v GMC [2007] EWCA Civ 46 — purported quotation; did not contain the words attributed and did not support the proposition
- Gupta v GMC [2001] UKPC 61 — purported quotation from para 21; did not contain the words attributed and did not support the proposition
- Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29 — cited as authority for a proposition; did not support it
What the court said
“The written submissions of Mr Simon Holborn, on behalf of Ms Tchampet, were partly generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) via Microsoft’s Co-Pilot software.”
“In particular, he relied on three authorities, two of which did not contain the words he attributed to them and none of which supported the propositions which he said they supported.”
“He immediately admitted what he had done and that the references were phantoms created by AI.”
“Consequently, the appeal will be allowed, the Decision will be quashed, and I will exercise my power to substitute the inevitable and correct decision, which is that Ms Tchampet should be struck off the register.”
Timeline
- NMC Fitness to Practise Committee hearing began, ending on 4 April 2025.
- Panel decision imposed a nine-month suspension rather than striking-off.
- High Court recorded Copilot-generated phantom authorities in Holborn’s submissions and warned him of possible contempt.
- Appeal allowed; suspension quashed and striking-off substituted.
Why this case matters
PSA v NMC shows how AI-fabricated citations can enter a professional-discipline appeal through an unregulated advocate rather than a party or practising lawyer. Unlike Ayinde v Haringey, where lawyers could be referred to the BSB and SRA, Griffiths J recorded that Holborn had already been struck off and acted as an unregulated representative. The court’s only immediate response to the AI misuse was a contempt warning, while the underlying regulatory appeal ended in the nurse’s striking-off. The record therefore exposes a gap between court control of submissions and professional regulation of the person making them.
Practice note
Before filing written argument, a representative should check each cited case in The National Archives, BAILII, ICLR, or another authoritative database, then read the passage used. The check must cover both existence and support for the proposition. If a tool such as Copilot helped draft the text, the representative should preserve the source trail and personally verify every quotation before filing.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- SRA v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (SDT)2026-08-25 · Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal · Strike-off / disbarmentIn 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 t…
- Lodhia v Twelve Trees, [2026] EWHC 1889 (KB)2026-07-24 · High Court of England and Wales, King's Bench Division (Media and Communications List) · Costs orderLinden 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…
- Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania, [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin)2026-07-08 · High Court of England and Wales (King's Bench Division, Administrative Court) · OtherIn 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 origin…
- Cork & Anor v Smith, [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch)2026-05-22 · High Court of England and Wales (Business and Property Courts, Insolvency and Companies List) · Regulatory referralIn 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…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Professional Standards Authority v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor, [2026] EWHC 141 (Admin)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/psa-v-nmc-tchampet (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.