Kamal v Tax Policy Associates
High Court · Mar 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- High Court
- Record ID
- kamal-v-tax-policy-associates-2026-03-11
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendants' application for partial strike-out of the claimant's particulars of claim and summary judgment on the libel claim.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division) identified the claimant's use of AI-generated fabricated case citations in correspondence as 'unacceptable' and a component of his broader failure to adhere to proper litigation standards. This conduct was cited by the court as part of the justification for striking out portions of the claimant's pleadings and granting summary judgment to the defendants.
The court reasoned that the claimant's deployment of AI-generated 'hallucinatory' references to non-existent cases in inter-partes correspondence was unacceptable and caused unnecessary effort in cross-checking. This conduct, alongside other procedural failures and oppressive litigation tactics, demonstrated that the proceedings were not properly conducted, justifying the strike-out of pleadings and summary judgment.
Deploying unverified AI citations in pleadings can cost you the case at summary judgment — verify every authority before filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Tax
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The defendants applied for a partial strike-out of the claimant's particulars of claim and for summary judgment on the libel claim. The court granted the application, striking out parts of the claim and ruling in favor of the defendants.
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
The court refers to the claimant's use of 'generative AI' to create 'hallucinatory' references.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case citations generated by AI tools before inclusion in correspondence or pleadings.
- Establish a firm-wide policy requiring human review of all AI-generated legal research to ensure accuracy and existence of cited authorities.
- Maintain an audit trail of research sources to demonstrate due diligence in the event of judicial inquiry into citation accuracy.