Ayinde v. Borough of Haringey

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 3 de abril de 2025, High Court (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. 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.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case on failure to consider medical needs; the Court found the case was fake.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case alleging irrational failure to provide interim accommodation; the Court found the citation was fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Claimant cited a non-existent High Court case to support a fairness argument; the Court determined it does not exist.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Claimant cited a non-existent Court of Appeal authority to support fairness principles; the Court found the case was fabricated.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. 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.

Desenlace

Wasted costs order; Partial disallowance of Claimant’s costs; Order to send transcript to Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority. Sanción económica: 11000 GBP. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/300/Ayinde_v._Borough_of_Haringey_UK_High_Court_April_3_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.