A recent case handled by our Dispute Resolution team demonstrates the perils and costs risks of unrepresented individuals and companies relying on Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tools in an attempt to save costs in obtaining expert legal advice.

In this case the claimant was a litigant in person, meaning they represented themselves in legal proceedings. The claimant used and relied on the information provided by an AI chatbot to inform their decision-making on how to progress legal proceedings and allowed it to draft the claims which were advanced.

As a result of the AI’s drafting, the claimant advanced claims for defamation, several breaches of the TUPE Regulations and unfair dismissal in the County Court, alongside a claim for wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) to the value of £297,500. This was an immediate, fundamental and costly error, as the County Court does not have the ability to adjudicate, defamation, TUPE, and unfair dismissal claims. These types of claims must be advanced in Employment Tribunal and the High Court of England and Wales.

In addition, whilst the AI generated court documents looked polished on the surface, they quickly revealed key flaws, as they:

  • Were formulaic but lacked essential detail;
  • Did not identify the legal basis of the claims;
  • Contained errors that an AI tool is simply not equipped to detect.

Our team successfully challenged the County Court’s jurisdiction, which resulted in the Court striking out the defamation, TUPE and Unfair Dismissal claims in their entirety.

Further, the claimant’s poorly particularised written case for breach of contract also failed to meet the basic requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules as it lacked sufficient detail, clear factual allegations, and any identification of the contractual terms the claimant asserted had been breached. As such our team were also successful in having this aspect of the claim struck out.

These are all fundamental elements that AI drafting tools often miss, as they cannot sufficiently understand legal context, procedural rules or the detail required to present a compliant claim.

As a consequence of these errors, the claimant not only suffered the loss of the court issue fee of £10,000, but our team also secured a significant costs order against the claimant. In total, the claimant incurred losses of approximately £20,000 because of the shortcomings of AI.

This case illustrates how relying on a self‑help AI tool can ultimately prove more costly and less effective than seeking proper legal advice from the outset.

Whilst AI can be a powerful resource, it is no substitute for qualified legal advice. Legal disputes are complex, and the repercussions of mistakes can be serious and expensive, as this case clearly demonstrates; seeking sound legal advice at the earliest stage can:

  • Save significant time and costs;
  • Prevent avoidable procedural errors;
  • Strengthen your position from the outset.

For skilled legal advice on legal disputes, contact  zac.clough@h-f.co.uk or jack.waywell@h-f.co.uk