Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 3, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 29, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Home/courts/High Court of Justice of England and Wales
HJEWGBInternational
Illustrated court-scope marker · not a courthouse photo
Source-linked corpus view

High Court of Justice of England and Wales

High Court of Justice of England and Wales appears in 12 of 2,257 public corpus records (0.53%). This page describes the recorded dataset, not an incidence rate, prevalence of AI use, or a prediction of future outcomes.

Matched records12
Corpus denominator2,257
Source linked100%
Latest trackedJul 8, 2026
Evidence-based answer

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in High Court of Justice of England and Wales?

AI Vortex currently links 12 source-linked public matters associated with High Court of Justice of England and Wales. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (11), Misrepresented authority (6) and Fabricated or altered quotations (3). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (5), Monetary sanction (4) and Bar or professional referral (2). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the court.

Every count below links to the exact matching records. The linked source, subsequent docket history, and local procedural context remain controlling.

Leading issue signalFabricated authorities11 records
Leading recorded responseNo adjudicated consequence recorded5 records
Known USD amountsNone recorded0 known · 4 unquantified
Recorded date rangeDec 6, 2024through Jul 8, 2026
Observed issue mix

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within a single matter.

Recorded consequences

How did courts or authorities respond?

Response categories can overlap and do not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

Participant context

Who appears in these matters?

Matter context

Which practice areas are represented?

Attribution status

How is AI involvement recorded?

Unspecified attribution is not evidence that a particular vendor was used.

Corpus evolution

When were these matters recorded?

Public records in this view

Showing the most recent 12 of 12 matching records.

Tobosaru v Romania; Tofan v RomaniaHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Jul 8, 2026
Kamal v Tax Policy AssociatesHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: low
Mar 11, 2026
Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LimitedHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Feb 17, 2026
PSAHSC v. TchampetHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · Microsoft Co-PilotEditorial impact: low
Jan 30, 2026
Taiwo v Homelets of Bath LimitedHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: medium
Dec 3, 2025
Choksi v IPSHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · Google AI OverviewEditorial impact: low
Nov 4, 2025
Re Sriram (aka Roy)High Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · No tool named in sourceEditorial impact: low
Oct 22, 2025
The Father v The MotherHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: medium
Jul 30, 2025
Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNBHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: high
Jun 6, 2025
Ayinde v. Borough of HaringeyHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: high
Apr 3, 2025
Olsen v Finansiel StabilitetHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · No tool named in sourceEditorial impact: low
Jan 25, 2025
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1)High Court of Justice of England and Wales · GB · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Dec 6, 2024
Open all matching records

Scope and limitation

This page groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish a judge’s general practices or sanction rate. For every entity type, the view is not a comparison against unobserved proceedings.

Indexing and evidence status

This public entity profile is indexable and meets the evidence-depth baseline of at least 3 source-linked records.

Before the next filing goes out, review the workflow behind it.

These records show where AI-assisted filings went wrong. AI Vortex works with law firms and legal teams on one AI-assisted workflow at a time: who reviews the output, who signs, and what source trail it leaves. Operations design, not legal advice.

Review a workflow