Re A, B, C, D (Extension of assessment; Use of AI: hallucinations)
Family Court Bournemouth · Mar 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Family Court Bournemouth
- Record ID
- re-a-b-c-d-extension-of-assessment-use-of-ai-hallucinations-2026-03-05
- Observed outcome
- The court rejected the litigant's applications for party status and data erasure, and published the judgment to address the misuse of AI in court submissions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court found that a self-represented litigant misled the court by submitting a skeleton argument containing fabricated case law and misrepresented statutory authorities generated by an AI tool. The litigant failed to verify the accuracy of the AI output, leading to wasted judicial and party resources. The court rejected the litigant's attempt to avoid responsibility for these errors.
Fabricated: Case Law | Skeleton argument contained citations that did not relate to the cases named; advocates agreed several citations/propositions were erroneous and the court identified these as AI-generated fabricated case law. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Some cited authorities were existing cases or statutes that did not support the propositions advanced—misattribution of precedent and statutory provisions traced to AI output. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Statutory provisions were cited in support of propositions they did not establish, attributed to AI assistance without verification.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Family Court Bournemouth, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter arose during a hearing in the Family Court regarding applications for party status and other directions. The court addressed the use of AI-generated materials as a preliminary issue before determining the substantive applications.
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 use of AI large language models without naming a specific product.
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 Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.