Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam
ADGM · Dec 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- ADGM
- Record ID
- arabyads-holding-limited-v-gulrez-alam-marghoob-alam-2025-12-18
- Observed outcome
- Mon
- Known monetary consequence
- 282,508 (currency not stated)
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Indemnity costs follow reckless AI use; institute mandatory second-attorney citation verification before any defence is filed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- 282,508 (currency not stated)
- Procedural posture
- Mon
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Limited (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.
- Set a written rule for permissible AI use and mandatory verification.