Handing down judgment in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) last week, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson held that two lawyers who cited fictitious cases in separate court proceedings should not face contempt proceedings.
However, they emphasised that in future hearings ‘such as these, the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled’.
They set out the range of sanctions for submitting false material— ‘costs order, the imposition of a wasted costs order, striking out a case, referral to a regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and referral to the police’.
In the first case, Sarah Forey, a pupil barrister, instructed by Haringey Law Centre, cited fictitious cases during a judicial review. There is no suggestion she intended to use AI or knew the cases were fake. Forey said, when drafting the grounds, she may have carried out additional Google or Safari searches without realising they included AI-generated summaries.
Emily Carter and Sahil Kher, Kingsley Napley, acting pro bono for Haringey Law Centre, said their clients ‘fully understand the seriousness of the issues that have arisen, and made full and unconditional apologies to the court.
‘They are reassured that the court has found there was no basis to suggest that the Law Centre or its senior solicitor had deliberately caused false material to be put before the court. The Law Centre paralegal—referred to as a solicitor in the original judgment—was found to be “not at fault in any way”.’
In the second case, Abid Hussain of Primus Solicitors admitted relying on legal research conducted by his own client, Mr Al-Haroun, which included 18 fake cases, in an £89.4m claim against Qatar National Bank and another. Hussain apologised and referred himself to the regulator.
Ian Jeffery, CEO of the Law Society, said: ‘Whether generative AI, online search or other tools are used, lawyers are ultimately responsible for the legal advice they provide.’
