The appellants, Olsen, were being heard on an appeal against the registration of a foreign judgment, itself an interesting decision turning as it did on a long delay resulting in the expiry of a limitation period that defeated the enforcement of the order. A full explanation is in the judgment. See the link below.

The Olsens, an elderly foreign couple who moved to the UK after the failure of their business in Denmark and who "live on universal credit" represented themselves but, they said, had traded on the goodwill of lawyers who had acted for their failed business, in particular in relation to an IPO.

In the bundle of authorities (previous relevant cases) was a reference to what the court described as

"“Flynn v. Breitenbach” and bore the reference [2020] EWCA Civ

1336, a reference which, it soon became apparent, does not exist in the records of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. The two page “summary” was written in a style that made me think the author was a lawyer familiar with the Judgments Regulation, but whose first language is not English."

The judgment goes on in a way that is not very different from comments we have heard before:

"The proposition stated was materially the same as here: a foreign judgment cannot be enforced here after expiry of the limitation period applicable in the originating state; i.e. the point on which the appellants have succeeded. It would be difficult to accept that the author was unaware the case was inauthentic. The appellants said it came to them from a German lawyer (unnamed) who was advising them informally; and that they did not know it was inauthentic."

My suspicion, and I can place it no higher than that, is that this is consistent with those examples where ChatGPT has been used to produce arguments and has produced fictitious cases. Whether that was done by the Olsens themselves or by one of their advisers, is not clear although it has to be said that I think it very unlikely that the Olsens would have done it.

The Court decided that no purpose would be served by charging them with contempt and that, in any case, it would be difficult to reach the criminal liability threshold. The Olsens were adamant that they did not know the case was fake and although they initially said it was reported, the very next day they arrived at Court, said they had undertaken further research and had not been able to find it; they apologised to the Court.

But there was a clear warning that where authorities are sourced other than from the parties and their own lawyers, authorities must be verified before being presented to the Court or there is a very real risk of criminal contempt proceedings.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Approved-Judgment-O…