With thanks to everyone who reads my legal articles and regularly shares decisions with me, I have now identified 50 incidents of hallucinated citations in the UK, whether suspected or confirmed. Two of those cases were heard together in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, and the third was the first decision I have identified from the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber.

For those interested in the statistics, and on my current review, my provisional count is as follows:

* 10 incidents from the Employment Tribunal.
* 10 incidents from the High Court.
* 6 incidents from the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office.
* 6 incidents from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
* 4 incidents from the County Court.
* 4 incidents from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
* 4 incidents from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).
* 1 incident from each of the following: the Court of Appeal, the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), the Sheriff Appeal Court, the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), and the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).

My focus in this legal article is on the case of *UK v SSHD and R (Munir) v SSHD* \[2026\] UKUT 81 (IAC) which raises particularly important principles. It is notable not only because of the context in which it arose, but also because the hearing engaged wider issues of privilege, confidentiality and data protection.

My full legal article is [here](https://naturalandartificiallaw.com/ai-hallucination-cases-uk-courts-50/).

50 UK Cases of Hallucinated Citations, First Case From UT(AAC) and UT(IAC) warns a supervisor failing to catch false citations is "likely to be more culpable"