In Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University [2025] 10 WLUK 719, the court ordered wasted costs against a firm of solicitors which had filed an application to amend particulars of claim citing two fictitious authorities. The firm explained that the document had been an unapproved draft generated by a member of staff using legal software with a built-in AI research function that automatically suggested case law, and that it had been mistakenly signed and filed by the administrative team. The court accepted that no one intended to mislead, but held that the filing of false material intended to be treated as genuine justified a wasted costs order.
The error came to light when the defendant’s solicitors requested copies of the authorities. A replacement application was filed omitting the fictitious cases, but it was dismissed, and the claim itself was subsequently struck out. The claimant’s solicitor, S, gave evidence that although his name appeared under the statement of truth, he had not approved the draft and had failed to review it due to illness. He accepted responsibility for the oversight and apologised, noting that steps had been taken to ensure the issue could not recur, including mandatory solicitor verification of all citations before filing.
The judge accepted S’s explanation as genuine, though “unsatisfactory” in some respects, and acknowledged that the first application had been extant only briefly and withdrawn before any hearing. However, he emphasised that under the SRA Code of Conduct, a solicitor remains accountable for the work of their staff. Because of “inadequacies in the functioning” of the firm, false material had been placed before the court and presented as authentic. Applying Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the judge concluded that the conduct was improper, unreasonable and negligent, and that the failures in administration made a wasted costs order appropriate.
S was not personally referred to the SRA. Although the regulator is automatically notified of wasted costs orders, the evidence suggested that the failings were rooted more in firm-wide management deficiencies than in individual misconduct. Nevertheless, the judge considered it important that the incident be formally recorded should similar issues arise again. He therefore directed that a transcript of the judgment be prepared at public expense and published on the Judiciary website. This decision illustrates the increasing judicial concern surrounding AI-generated legal material and underlines the obligation on solicitors to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of documents filed with the court, particularly where emerging technologies are used in legal drafting.
Ndaryiyumvire -v- Birmingham City University
