David Jeffs v London Borough of Lewisham

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

El 16 de marzo de 2026, First-tier Tribunal (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de norma legal. Applicant relied on an invented wording of regulation 7(5); Tribunal pointed out the Regulation's actual wording does not state the service rule the Applicant quoted.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Applicant cited a non-existent case titled 'Regent Management Ltd v Daejan Investments Ltd'; Tribunal found this case did not exist and was likely invented/adapted by AI.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Applicant cited Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 but relied on principles irrelevant to the issues; Tribunal found the case did not support Applicant's submissions as cited.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Applicant cited Lambeth LBC v Kelly [2022] UKUT 290 (LC) for a point outside its scope; Tribunal held the case related to dispensations under s20ZA and was not relevant as relied upon.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Applicant cited Collingwood v Carillion House Eastbourne Limited [2021] UKUT 246 (LC) but Tribunal found it concerned a different procedural issue and was not applicable to the Applicant's argument.

Desenlace

Cost-related relief refused in part because of AI misuse. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2154/Jeffs_v._Levisham_UK_16_March_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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