Ad/Marketing Communication
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law.
Introduction
I want to thank everyone who contributed to the recent webinar. The feedback has been extremely positive, and I am already planning the next session. Details about how you can take part or contribute are included below.
Turning to this latest legal case report, which is most likely the 18th False Legal Citation case in the UK, I reflected carefully before deciding whether to include it in my article and database. As you will see, the Judge made no findings about how the error occurred and no criticism of the litigant in person. However, I believe that for precisely that reason, it deserves to be documented. It provides an important contrast to those cases where formal action has been taken, illustrating situations in which the court may instead choose to take no further step.
This is a separate case from the three discussed here, which I will be revisiting shortly:
Malathi Latha Sriram (Mukti Roy) v Louise Mary Brittain
This judgment concerned two applications in bankruptcy proceedings. The full factual background can be accessed through the link above. For present purposes, I will focus on the section beginning at paragraph 36.
The Judge observed:
“Conspicuously absent from this judgment is any reference to case law. There are two reasons for that. The first is that I have felt able to deal with the issues without reference to authority because in my view they can be disposed of on the basis of the evidence and submissions. The second is this. Although in her skeleton arguments [Claimant] cites a great deal of case law, most of it is of little or no assistance. Mr Comiskey has prepared what he calls a “Note on Authorities”. He complains that [Claimant] has previously cited fake authorities and has sought to rely on authorities which provide no support for the propositions that purport to arise from them, and he says she has done it again here.” (Paragraph 37)
The Judge clarified that the criticism did not extend to every case mentioned by the Claimant, though it was true for most. A case was cited that does not exist, nor does the citation itself (Type 1). The Judge remarked:
“…The case name is clearly invented. Mr Comiskey draws the court’s attention to R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) and in particular two passages from the judgement: paragraph 26, in which it was held that placing false information (including fake authorities) before the court with the intention that the court treat it as genuine was a contempt if done knowingly, although not if done negligently; and the discussion in paragraph 88 of another case, Bandla v SRA [2025] 4 WLR 63 in which an appeal was struck out as an abuse of process for the citation and use of fake authorities.” (Paragraph 38)
The Judge noted that many of the other cases relied on were not to the point or were irrelevant. Counsel had provided a schedule identifying those cases with a short summary, and that analysis was accepted and adopted by the court. Importantly, Counsel did not invite the court to investigate whether the Claimant had deliberately provided false authorities. The Judge continued:
“…rightly in my view, and I make no criticism of her. For what it is worth, I suspect, that, in common with many unrepresented parties, [Claimant] has resorted to research using the internet and has come up with false leads. The late Muir Hunter was an eminent member of the insolvency bar and the author for many years of an insolvency commentary that still bears his name. It is easy to see how his name could have come up in the course of an internet search and end up wrongly linked to a real case name and reference. The abbreviation BPIR stands for the Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports. They are not readily available to members of the public. It would have been difficult for [Claimant] to check the citation…” (Paragraph 40)
Comment
As noted in the introduction, this case is significant because it illustrates circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to investigate whether citations were provided deliberately, to determine the cause of incorrect citations, or to criticise a litigant in person for citing the authorities. It highlights the important discretion available to judges in distinguishing between deliberate misconduct, negligence, and genuine mistakes, particularly by litigants in person who may be navigating complex legal research without formal access to legal databases. Documenting such cases helps to build a more nuanced understanding of how courts approach these situations and supports a balanced perspective in discussions about false citations.
Next Legal Webinar
Looking ahead, I am considering two points when scheduling the next webinar. The first is timing. I would like to make it easier for my Australian colleagues to join, as the timing of the pilot session was not ideal for them. The next session will therefore likely take place at around 9am UK time, which should be approximately 7pm in Sydney, 6.30pm in Adelaide and 4pm in Perth.
The second point concerns our next topic. I have recently been contacted by several expert witnesses who have suggested a particularly compelling theme exploring the intersection of mental health and clinical negligence arising from the use of AI in healthcare. I would like to expand this to include related areas such as criminal implications, child safeguarding, and wider issues of civil liability, all of which we began to touch upon during the pilot.
If you or anyone you know, whether in the UK, the US, Australia, or elsewhere, would like to contribute, please do get in touch. I am especially keen to hear from psychiatrists and psychologists with experience in digital health, clinical negligence and healthcare law specialists, AI safety researchers, medical ethicists, and practitioners or academics working in related areas of AI governance.
If you would like to attend the next webinar or suggest a topic, please use the contact details here to speak with my clerks in Chambers.
If you have not already done so, please subscribe to this blog below. It’s the best way to stay up to date, and you’ll receive an email each time a new post is published on this blog together with a summary of the issues discussed:
Final Comment from ChatGPT 5 pro
Here is where I hand things over to a premium AI model for comment. This week, I needed to remove some overly complimentary elements and sections that reflected a misunderstanding of the context, but the following remained:
“…the piece shows that false or muddled citations do not automatically trigger sanction; the court deliberately decided the applications on the evidence, adopted counsel’s “Note on Authorities”, recognised a fabricated case label among largely unhelpful authorities, and still declined to criticise a litigant in person whose internet-led research and lack of access to BPIR likely explained the errors…”
