Case Details
- CV2023-04039 – Nexgen Pathology Services Limited v Darceuil Duncan
- Decision Delivered: 30 April 2025
- Mr. Justice Westmin R.A. James
Judicial Warning on Misleading Legal Authorities
In a sobering development for legal practitioners, the High Court issued a scathing condemnation of counsel’s reliance on non-existent case law in written submissions filed in this employment-related matter. The cited cases, presented as central authorities supporting the Claimant’s position on implied contractual obligations, were found to be entirely fictitious or unverifiable.
Among the bogus citations were:
- BWIA v Ramnarine (TT Industrial Court, 2005)
- National Petroleum v Brewster (TT 2007)
- London School of Economics v Dr Don (2016)
- Ishmael v National Insurance Property Development Co. Ltd (2014)
These cases were styled to appear as legitimate decisions, some even purporting to come from the Trinidad and Tobago Industrial Court, despite that Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over trade disputes involving trade unions.
Court’s Findings
None of the cited cases appeared in any recognized legal database or were included in the Claimant’s Bundle of Authorities.
Upon inquiry, Counsel admitted that the cases were copied from Google and Google Scholar by a junior research assistant without proper verification.
Counsel further confirmed that no AI tools were used, but accepted full responsibility for the oversight.
Justice James described the explanation as “wholly unsatisfactory,” noting:
“Legitimate court judgments do not simply disappear from online repositories without a trace.”
He emphasized that submission of fictitious or unverifiable authorities, whether from AI tools or careless online research, constitutes a serious abuse of process.
Ethical Breach and Referral
In light of the misconduct, the Court invoked its authority under section 37(2) of the Legal Profession Act, ordering that the matter be referred to the Registrar of the Supreme Court for investigation by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association.
The Court stressed that:
- Attorneys have a duty of candour and accuracy to the Court.
- The use of AI or online sources must be accompanied by rigorous verification.
- Failure to do so undermines the credibility of the justice system.
Justice James concluded pointedly:
“The integrity of the justice system relies on diligence, honesty, and professional accountability. Rest assured: the intelligence of this Court is not artificial.”
Key Takeaway
Counsel must never cite case law unless its existence, relevance, and authenticity have been properly confirmed. As legal research increasingly intersects with digital tools and AI platforms, the standard of verification and professional responsibility must remain uncompromising.