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.
It was a pleasure last week to present at the Doughty Street AI conference on AI hallucinations and professional issues, including professional negligence, which arose as a result of Mr Justice Richie’s observations in Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin).
After the presentation, I had some interesting conversations about the implications of this judgment. People were certainly concerned. As the decision has featured on many prominent blogs and media outlets, there are few that do not know of the case and the serious implications that followed. However, the case did not end with the wasted costs order and the publicity.
The High Court has now taken a further step. On 12 May 2025, Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, ordered a hearing to be listed:
“to consider what further steps, if any, the Court should take in relation to” [the individuals involved]
and
“The steps which the Court will consider taking include the initiation of proceedings for contempt of court pursuant to CPR 81.6.”
The individuals are given an opportunity to file evidence and/or written submissions by 4pm today. A copy of the Order was sent to the BSB and the SRA. The Court provided the following “REASONS”:
“(1) In CL-2024-000435, it appears from the Order of Mrs Justice Dias that correspondence was sent to the court, and witness statements were filed, citing authorities that do not exist and claiming that other authorities contained passages that they do not contain. In AC-2024-LON-003062, it appears from the Order and judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie that written submissions were filed citing authorities that do not exist.
(2) As Mr Justice Linden observed in his justice in High Court proceedings. That being so, the court is obliged by CPR 81.6(1) of its own initiative to consider whether to proceed against any of them in contempt proceedings.
(3) The individuals and organisations listed in paragraph 1 of this Order are invited to consider taking legal advice before filing any response pursuant to paragraph 3(a) of this Order.”
The court referred the matters under the Hamid jurisdiction (R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin)).
For those that don’t know, this means the Court has inherent powers to intervene and sanction those who may be abusing or misusing the judicial process. In particular, a Hamid hearing often involves legal practitioners being called before the Court to account for professional issues.
Contempt proceedings are serious. The penalties for contempt include imprisonment and/or fines.
There are two further points of note. Firstly, the Ayinde case is to be heard with the case Hamad Alharoun v (1) Qatar National Bank Q.P.S.C. (2) QNB Capital LL. I have not been able to locate any transcript from that hearing, so if anyone has it I would be grateful if it could be sent to me, but it seems in that case:
“…it appears from the Order of Mrs Justice Dias that correspondence was sent to the court, and witness statements were filed, citing authorities that do not exist and claiming that other authorities contained passages that they do not contain”
Secondly, the court order appears to have stated the wrong defendant in the Ayinde case. The original defendant is Haringey, not “The London Borough of Hackney”. I don’t know why this has happened, but if anyone else does, please let me know.
The hearing is set for Friday 23 May 2025. I will be following this case closely. It is hoped that the Court will give some much-needed guidance to those using AI in legal practice.
I would also like to thank everyone who has helped me maintain the AI Hallucination Cases Tracker. There are now 49 entries, which it is hoped is helping people consider how these important issues are being dealt with globally.
This article is part of my broader legal commentary available through my Substack newsletter.
Subscribing ensures you receive immediate updates, in-depth analysis, and exclusive legal insights as they are published.
➔ [Subscribe here to stay informed].
