header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 June 2025 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 8119 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Profession , Artificial intelligence , Costs
printer mail-detail

The insider: 6 June 2025

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
221403
More oi oi than AI: Dominic Regan on fake citations, succinct judgments & bewildering costs

On the day before his birthday, Sir Andrew Ritchie heard and gave judgment in the bizarre case of R (on the application of Frederick Ayinde) v Haringey London Borough Council [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin). I have no doubt that reams will be dedicated to this matter, but nevertheless I want to make a few comments.

This is the infamous judicial review in which no less than five fake authorities were cited to the defendant and the High Court. There is no accepted explanation as to where these cases originated. Who or what created them? The finger is pointed at artificial intelligence (AI). No one should ever be citing authorities without first checking their provenance. Dare I say it is also a mighty good idea to read them? No matter how brilliant the headnote, there is no substitute for reading the entire decision within which there might just be buried treasure. The seminal authority

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll