Elden v HMRC

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

El 8 de enero de 2026, First-tier Tribunal (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

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Skeleton summarized Atlantic Electronics Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKUT 45 (TCC) as if it were a strike-out authority; Tribunal read the full 9-page decision and found the summary inaccurate and irrelevant (case concerned MTIC VAT and admission of additional evidence).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Skeleton presented Leeds City Council as if it were about denying a full hearing/strike-out; Tribunal read the 11-page decision and found the skeleton's summary misleading (case concerned costs and delay, not strike-out).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Skeleton misdated and mischaracterised Hok Ltd v HMRC (cited as 2011) and presented it as a strike-out authority; Tribunal found this inaccurate (case concerns PAYE penalties, not strike-out) and noted the misattribution.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Passages in the skeleton attributed to 'Hok' were in fact taken from Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc [1999] 1 WLR 1926 (CA); Tribunal concluded case-heading/citation substitutions had occurred, producing materially misleading summaries.

Desenlace

Order to include statements of truth about AI use. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1283/Gary_Elden_v_The_Commissioners_for_HMRC_UK_8_January_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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