Another cautionary tale on the perils of uncritical reliance on generative artificial intelligence (AI) arrived in the English High Court in April 2025. The court found a barrister and a firm of solicitors responsible for including fictitious case citations in formal submissions before the court. The court’s response was uncompromising: counsel and her instructing solicitors
Tristan Marot
UK’s Solicitors Regulatory Authority Authorises “first purely AI-based firm”
By Tristan Marot on
This week, the UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) announced it has granted authorisation to Garfield.Law Ltd as the first Alternative Business Structure permitted to deliver regulated legal services directly via artificial intelligence (AI).
Unlike traditional firms (a good portion of whom already harnessing AI for various tasks including the provision of legal services to clients…
Constitutional Court says written reasons required for punitive costs orders
By Tristan Marot on
The Constitutional Court’s unanimous April 2025 judgment in Prithilal v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd and Another restates the narrow circumstances in which a court may depart from the ordinary party‑and‑party scale and award costs on the punitive attorney‑and‑client scale. Ms Prithilal, although successful in joining Akani to her delictual action, had been ordered by the…
A defence based in the voluntary assumption of risk
By Tristan Marot on
A February 2025 high-court full bench-appeal judgement examined the legal principles underpinning the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. The case arose from an incident during a student protest at a university campus, where a security guard discharged his firearm, using non‐lethal ammunition in the form of rubber bullets and ceramic paint balls, and injured…
How unverified research and AI shaped a high court judgment
By Tristan Marot on
In a January 2025 judgment the High Court offers a stark reminder of the ethical obligations that underpin legal practice when placing information before a court. What began as a routine application for leave to appeal escalated into a significant cautionary tale, culminating in a referral of the legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council…
Requirements for an application to dismiss a claim for want of prosecution
By Tristan Marot on
In a December 2024 judgment, the High Court discusses the requirements for a successful application to dismiss a claim due to want of prosecution.
Quoting from the 2014 SCA judgement in Cassimjee v Minister of Finance there are three primary requirements that must be met:
“First, there should be a delay in the prosecution of…
Expert Evidence of Collision, Reasonable Care and Dishonesty?
By Tristan Marot on
In an October 2024 judgement, the Pretoria High Court examined the rejection of an insurance claim following a motor vehicle accident. On 26 December 2016, the claimant was driving his insured sports car when he collided with a wall. He filed a claim with his insurer, which was rejected on the grounds that he had…
Company is liable for Chatbot Miscommunications holds Canadian Tribunal
By Tristan Marot on
The Canadian case of Moffatt v. Air Canada considers a dispute concerning a refund for a bereavement fare. Jake Moffatt, the applicant, booked flights with Air Canada following the death of his grandmother. He was informed by an AI powered chatbot on Air Canada’s website that he could apply for bereavement fares retroactively. However, when…
An Acknowledgement of liability to third party interrupts prescription
By Tristan Marot on
The Free State High Court confirms in J.H.V v Centlec (SOC) Ltd and Others that an acknowledgement of liability by the debtor interrupts prescription, even if the acknowledgement is not made directly to the creditor.
The applicant approached the High Court for a declaratory order that he was not indebted to Centlec SOC Ltd, the municipal electricity…
AI Cannot be an Inventor says Supreme Court (UK)
By Tristan Marot on
In December 2023, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that an AI cannot be an inventor under the UK Patents Act of 1977, and accordingly patents cannot be granted for inventions derived by AI.
Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks, considers Dr. Stephen Thaler’s applications for patents for…