HomeCasesRe Sriram (aka Roy)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Re Sriram (aka Roy)

High Court · Oct 22, 2025

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsbankruptcytrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Litigant relied on a non-existent case citation which the court identified as invented; judge found the citation does not exist and likely arose from internet research error. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.

Record details

CourtHigh Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateOct 22, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Litigant relied on a non-existent case citation which the court identified as invented; judge found the citation does not exist and likely arose from internet research error.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Re Sriram (aka Roy)?: Fabricated: Case Law | Litigant relied on a non-existent case citation which the court identified as invented; judge found the citation does not exist and likely arose from internet research error. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Re Sriram (aka Roy) matter for legal AI risk?: Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.
What does the public record establish about Re Sriram (aka Roy)?: 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 Re Sriram (aka Roy) 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.

Taiwo v Homelets of Bath LimitedHigh Court · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations The Father v The MotherHigh Court · Jul 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Malone & Anor v Laois County Council & OrsHigh Court · Jun 23, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Olsen v Finansiel StabilitetHigh Court · Jan 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Roux v. van GreunenHigh Court · Jan 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri SeijiHigh Court · Jan 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Re Sriram (aka Roy)?

Why does Re Sriram (aka Roy) matter for legal AI risk?

Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.

What does the public record establish about Re Sriram (aka Roy)?

Which source supports this Re Sriram (aka Roy) 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.