Gloriose Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University
County Court (Birmingham) · Oct 14, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- County Court (Birmingham)
- Record ID
- gloriose-ndaryiyumvire-v-birmingham-city-university-2025-10-14
- Observed outcome
- Wasted costs order issued against the solicitor; referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
LEAP and other paid legal AI will fabricate authority — wasted-costs plus bar referral follow automatically.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Bar Referral
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- LEAP legal software
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Adjudicated hearing regarding a wasted costs application following the submission of fictitious case law in an application to amend particulars of claim.
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
Solicitor admitted using LEAP legal software.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to LEAP legal software output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.