Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2025 » November » 20
AND THEY KEEP ON COMING... ANOTHER FALSE CITATIONS CASE: "I RELIED ON THE AI OVERVIEW" FROM GOOGLE

AND THEY KEEP ON COMING… ANOTHER FALSE CITATIONS CASE: “I RELIED ON THE AI OVERVIEW” FROM GOOGLE

November 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

The cases continue to come.  Some lawyers are continuing to rely upon artificial intelligence to produce false authorities.   Here was a firm of solicitors (defending themselves) who relied on the AI contents of a Google search.  Such searches are never…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 38: PARTICULARS OF CLAIM IN A £3,000,000 CLAIM STRUCK OUT:  THE COURT USES A "CARROT AND STICK" APPROACH TO DEFECTIVE PLEADINGS

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 38: PARTICULARS OF CLAIM IN A £3,000,000 CLAIM STRUCK OUT: THE COURT USES A “CARROT AND STICK” APPROACH TO DEFECTIVE PLEADINGS

November 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

In this case the judge decided that the claimant’s pleaded case was so defective that the entire Particulars of Claim needed to be struck out.  It is a working example of how pleadings need to be compliant and cannot be…

ANOTHER FALSE  AND "HALLUCINATED" CITATION CASE: A SOLICITOR IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WORK DONE BY THEIR STAFF: WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE

ANOTHER FALSE AND “HALLUCINATED” CITATION CASE: A SOLICITOR IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WORK DONE BY THEIR STAFF: WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE

November 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Wasted Costs

We have yet another case of “hallucinated” cases caused by artificial “intelligence” being cited in court.  These have the capacity to, and indeed do, land lawyers in very hot water.  Here false cases were put before the court in an…

SERVICE POINTS 23: THE COURT REFUSES TO RATIFY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM BY EMAIL: "THE RESULTS ARE HARSH BUT THAT IS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE REGIME..."

SERVICE POINTS 23: THE COURT REFUSES TO RATIFY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM BY EMAIL: “THE RESULTS ARE HARSH BUT THAT IS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE REGIME…”

November 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

We could, perhaps, run some kind of charity betting game on whether, and how many, cases there will be on service of the claim form between now and Christmas. The reason for not doing so it because it runs the…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 415: A LOOK AT SOME SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS IN AN ACTION: HOURLY RATES NOT GOING FOR A SONG
  • WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN’T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN “AIR OF UNREALITY” ABOUT THEM
  • COST BITES 414 : A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER STILL HAD AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF COSTS: CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS AFTER DATE OF OFFER
  • CIVIL PROCEDURE, OPAQUE EVIDENCE AND “YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”: ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURTS – TWO EXAMPLES AND THE UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LITIGANTS…
  • COST BITES 413: GET YOUR FUNDING IN PLACE AND TELL EVERYONE IF THE MUSIC HAS STOPPED: CAT AWARDS COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS DUE TO CONDUCT

Top Posts

REMEMBER NEW COURT FEES CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: SEE THEM HERE
WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES - BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE "HOSTILE"
WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN'T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN "AIR OF UNREALITY" ABOUT THEM
HALLUCINATED CASE LAW AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (OF ALL BODIES...)
WAS A SOLICITOR'S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION "REASONABLE": COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.