Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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.
Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNB
High Court · Jun 6, 2025
GBEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated case cited: El Gendi; Court found no such case exists and that the neutral citation belonged to an unrelated case about business rates. Outcome: No contempt, but referral to professional bodies. This judgment, delivered on 6 June 2025 by the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, addresses two cases referred under the court's Hamid jurisdiction, which concerns the court's power to enforce duties lawyers owe to the court.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is No contempt, but referral to professional bodies; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- UK High Court issued Hamid guidance referring lawyers to professional bodies; supervision and training failures invite discipline even without contempt.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated case cited: El Gendi; Court found no such case exists and that the neutral citation belonged to an unrelated case about business rates. Outcome: No contempt, but referral to professional bodies. This judgment, delivered on 6 June 2025 by the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, addresses two cases referred under the court's Hamid jurisdiction, which concerns the court's power to enforce duties lawyers owe to the court. Both cases involve lawyers submitting written arguments or evidence containing false information, specifically non-existent case citations, generated through the use of artificial intelligence without proper verification.The Court used this opportunity to issue broader guidance on the use of AI in legal practice, raising concerns about the competence, training, and supervision of lawyers.
Operational lesson
UK High Court issued Hamid guidance referring lawyers to professional bodies; supervision and training failures invite discipline even without contempt.
Record details
CourtHigh Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 6, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeNo contempt, but referral to professional bodies
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
No contempt, but referral to professional bodies
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
11 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated case cited: El Gendi; Court found no such case exists and that the neutral citation belonged to an unrelated case about business rates.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated case cited; Court confirmed it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated case cited; Court confirmed it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated case cited; Court confirmed it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated Court of Appeal authority cited; Court confirmed it does not exist.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Statutory duty misrepresented: s.188(3) HA 1996 stated as requiring interim accommodation; Court noted the statute is discretionary ('may secure').
- Fabricated: Case Law | In a separate County Court matter, grounds of appeal and skeleton contained non-existent cases; alerted by the judge.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Judicial assistant’s schedule identified 18 non-existent authorities across claimant’s and solicitor’s witness statements.
Show 3 additional discrepancies
- False Quotes: Case Law | Existing cases were quoted for passages that do not appear in them in claimant’s and solicitor’s statements.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Existing authorities cited did not support the propositions advanced or were irrelevant to the application.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated authority attributed to Dias J herself among citations to the court.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNB?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated case cited: El Gendi; Court found no such case exists and that the neutral citation belonged to an unrelated case about business rates. Outcome: No contempt, but referral to professional bodies. This judgment, delivered on 6 June 2025 by the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, addresses two cases referred under the court's Hamid jurisdiction, which concerns the court's power to enforce duties lawyers owe to the court.…
- Why does Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNB matter for legal AI risk?
- UK High Court issued Hamid guidance referring lawyers to professional bodies; supervision and training failures invite discipline even without contempt.
- What does the public record establish about Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNB?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNB 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.