Gloriose Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University
County Court (Birmingham) · Oct 14, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a wasted costs order against the solicitor and referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The judge determined that the solicitor's reliance on LEAP legal software without verification, combined with the unauthorized signing of court documents by administrative staff, constituted negligent and improper conduct.
- Why the court cared
- The court applied the principles from Ayinde v London Borough of Hackney [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), holding that lawyers have a professional duty to verify AI-generated research. The judge reasoned that the solicitor's failure to check citations, coupled with the improper delegation of signing duties to administrative staff, met the threshold for a wasted costs order under CPR Part 46 and necessitated a regulatory referral.
- Why it matters now
- LEAP and other paid legal AI will fabricate authority — wasted-costs plus bar referral follow automatically.
Why this matter is tracked
In a civil matter before the Birmingham County Court, a solicitor filed an application to amend particulars of claim containing two fictitious legal authorities: 'Qureshi v Qureshi [1998] 1 WLR 174' and 'Z Ltd v A Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 110'. The solicitor attributed the inclusion of these fabricated cases to the 'research function' of LEAP legal software and inadequate internal supervision of administrative staff. The court found the solicitor's conduct negligent and improper, noting that the solicitor failed to verify the citations despite clear judicial guidance on the risks of AI-generated research. The court ordered the solicitor to pay wasted costs and referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for further investigation into the professional conduct breaches.
LEAP and other paid legal AI will fabricate authority — wasted-costs plus bar referral follow automatically.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Solicitor admitted using LEAP legal software.
Adjudicated hearing regarding a wasted costs application following the submission of fictitious case law in an application to amend particulars of claim.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Application cited 'Qureshi v Qureshi [1998] 1 WLR 174' as authority for amendments; court found no such authority exists and the citation was fictitious (the cited neutral citation corresponds to an unrelated case).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Application cited 'Z Ltd v A Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 110' as authority for allowing amendments; court found the case name to be fictitious (the neutral citation corresponds to TS (Burma) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) and the citation was fabricated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Gloriose Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University?
- The court issued a wasted costs order against the solicitor and referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The judge determined that the solicitor's reliance on LEAP legal software without verification, combined with the unauthorized signing of court documents by administrative staff, constituted negligent and improper conduct.
- Why does Gloriose Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University matter for legal AI risk?
- LEAP and other paid legal AI will fabricate authority — wasted-costs plus bar referral follow automatically.
- What does the public record establish about Gloriose Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University?
- 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 Gloriose Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University 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.