Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Ayinde on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Ayinde v. Borough of Haringey

Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
UK
Decided
2025-04-03
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Wasted costs order; Partial disallowance of Claimant’s costs; Order to send transcript to Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority
Monetary penalty
11000 GBP

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case to support a duty to provide interim accommodation; the Court found it does not exist and rejected counsel's explanation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case on failure to consider medical needs; the Court found the case was fake. || Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case alleging irrational failure to provide interim accommodation; the Court found the citation was fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case to support a fairness argument; the Court determined it does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited a non-existent Court of Appeal authority to support fairness principles; the Court found the case was fabricated. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimant asserted section 188(3) Housing Act 1996 imposes a mandatory duty to provide interim accommodation; the Court held s.188(3) is discretionary ('may'), so the submission was wrong.

Details

AI UseThe judgment states that the only other explanation for the fabricated cases was the use of artificial intelligence.Hallucination DetailsThe following five nonexistent cases were cited:R (El Gendi) v Camden [2020] EWHC 2435 (Admin)R (Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest [2019] EWHC 1873R (H) v Ealing [2021] EWHC 939 (Admin)R (KN) v Barnet [2020] EWHC 1066 (Admin)R (Balogun) v Lambeth [2020] EWCA Civ. 1442Ruling/SanctionThe court imposed wasted costs orders against both barrister and solicitor, reduced the claimant’s recoverable costs, and ordered the judgment to be provided to the BSB and SRA.

Sanction teardown · High Court, UK · 2025-04-03

Ayinde v. Borough of Haringey

What happened

In High Court, UK, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case to support a duty to provide interim accommodation; the Court found it does not exist and rejected counsel's explanation.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case on failure to consider medical needs; the Court found the case was fake.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case alleging irrational failure to provide interim accommodation; the Court found the citation was fabricated.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case to support a fairness argument; the Court determined it does not exist.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Claimant cited a non-existent Court of Appeal authority to support fairness principles; the Court found the case was fabricated.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Claimant asserted section 188(3) Housing Act 1996 imposes a mandatory duty to provide interim accommodation; the Court held s.188(3) is discretionary ('may'), so the submission was wrong.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Wasted costs order; Partial disallowance of Claimant’s costs; Order to send transcript to Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority (monetary penalty: 11000 GBP.)

Additional detail

AI UseThe judgment states that the only other explanation for the fabricated cases was the use of artificial intelligence.Hallucination DetailsThe following five nonexistent cases were cited:R (El Gendi) v Camden [2020] EWHC 2435 (Admin)R (Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest [2019] EWHC 1873R (H) v Ealing [2021] EWHC 939 (Admin)R (KN) v Barnet [2020] EWHC 1066 (Admin)R (Balogun) v Lambeth [2020] EWCA Civ. 1442Ruling/SanctionThe court imposed wasted costs orders against both barrister and solicitor, reduced the claimant’s recoverable costs, and ordered the judgment to be provided to the BSB and SRA.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/300/Ayinde_v._Borough_of_Haringey_UK_High_Court_April_3_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/300/Ayinde_v._Borough_of_Haringey_UK_High_Court_April_3_2025.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template