HomeCasesArabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam

ADGM · Dec 18, 2025

AEEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited a non-existent authority as “Allied Dunbar [1985]”; court found the citation did not exist and arose from inadequate verification of AI-derived research. Outcome: Mon. MIO produced a prolix Defence containing multiple non-existent, miscited and misapplied authorities. The Court found AI-driven research produced hallucinatory results and that MIO failed adequately to verify authorities, amounting to reckless conduct warranting an indemnity costs order.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited a non-existent authority as “Allied Dunbar [1985]”; court found the citation did not exist and arose from inadequate verification of AI-derived research. || Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited “Johnston v Moreton [2014] EWHC 1219 (Ch)”, which did not exist as cited; court found the reference was erroneous and not verifiable. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence included an incorrect citation “Halifax Life Ltd v DLA Piper LLP [2008]” (year and report incorrect); court treated this as an inaccurate/misleading citation arising from poor verification. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence cited an Indian citation (“Capgemini India v Krishnan [2018] SCC OnLine Del 10990”) where an English case was intended, indicating careless/misleading citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence relied on Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 for a proposition the case did not support; court found the authority misapplied. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence cited Re Lehman Brothers Int'l (Europe) [2010] EWCA Civ 917 for a proposition it did not establish; court concluded the case was misused to support an incorrect legal point.
Why it matters now: Indemnity costs follow reckless AI use; institute mandatory second-attorney citation verification before any defence is filed.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Indemnity costs follow reckless AI use; institute mandatory second-attorney citation verification before any defence is filed.

Record details

CourtADGM

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateDec 18, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMon

Known amount$282,508

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Mon

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited a non-existent authority as “Allied Dunbar [1985]”; court found the citation did not exist and arose from inadequate verification of AI-derived research.
Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited “Johnston v Moreton [2014] EWHC 1219 (Ch)”, which did not exist as cited; court found the reference was erroneous and not verifiable.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence included an incorrect citation “Halifax Life Ltd v DLA Piper LLP [2008]” (year and report incorrect); court treated this as an inaccurate/misleading citation arising from poor verification.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence cited an Indian citation (“Capgemini India v Krishnan [2018] SCC OnLine Del 10990”) where an English case was intended, indicating careless/misleading citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence relied on Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 for a proposition the case did not support; court found the authority misapplied.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence cited Re Lehman Brothers Int'l (Europe) [2010] EWCA Civ 917 for a proposition it did not establish; court concluded the case was misused to support an incorrect legal point.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam?: Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited a non-existent authority as “Allied Dunbar [1985]”; court found the citation did not exist and arose from inadequate verification of AI-derived research. Outcome: Mon. MIO produced a prolix Defence containing multiple non-existent, miscited and misapplied authorities. The Court found AI-driven research produced hallucinatory results and that MIO failed adequately to verify authorities, amounting to reckless conduct warranting an indemnity costs order.
Why does Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam matter for legal AI risk?: Indemnity costs follow reckless AI use; institute mandatory second-attorney citation verification before any defence is filed.
What does the public record establish about Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home CentersM.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group Ltd, et al.N.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)BFG Corporation v. Pierce RE Holdings et al.N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)CIBC Mortgages Inc v Reina FloresManitoba C.A. · Jun 12, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Leafwell, Inc. v. The Doc App, Inc. (2)M.D. Florida · Jun 9, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Allison v. Shutterfly LifeTouch LLCN.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Indemnity costs follow reckless AI use; institute mandatory second-attorney citation verification before any defence is filed.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited a non-existent authority as “Allied Dunbar [1985]”; court found the citation did not exist and arose from inadequate verification of AI-derived research.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defence cited “Johnston v Moreton [2014] EWHC 1219 (Ch)”, which did not exist as cited; court found the reference was erroneous and not verifiable.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence included an incorrect citation “Halifax Life Ltd v DLA Piper LLP [2008]” (year and report incorrect); court treated this as an inaccurate/misleading citation arising from poor verification.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence cited an Indian citation (“Capgemini India v Krishnan [2018] SCC OnLine Del 10990”) where an English case was intended, indicating careless/misleading citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence relied on Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 for a proposition the case did not support; court found the authority misapplied.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Defence cited Re Lehman Brothers Int'l (Europe) [2010] EWCA Civ 917 for a proposition it did not establish; court concluded the case was misused to support an incorrect legal point.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam?

Why does Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam matter for legal AI risk?

Indemnity costs follow reckless AI use; institute mandatory second-attorney citation verification before any defence is filed.

What does the public record establish about Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam?

Which source supports this Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.