Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet

Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
UK
Decided
2025-01-25
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
No contempt, but might bear out on costs
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants relied on a non-existent case summary titled Flynn v. Breitenbach to argue foreign judgments cannot be enforced after the originating state's limitation period; the Court confirmed the citation does not exist and appellants later apologised. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellants asserted that a court seal, notarisation, and an apostille were required to authenticate the Danish judgment for registration; the Court held the governing rules do not prescribe such methods. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Appellants claimed the Annex V certificate was incomplete and missing the certified judgment and translation; the Court found Annex V was properly issued on 10 August 2023 and the authentic copy and certified translation were provided. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Appellants alleged the Danish judgment copy was non-certified and bore the wrong logo, implying inauthenticity; the Court found the judgment authentic and the translation unimpeached. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellants argued the 10-year Danish limitation expired at midnight on 15 August 2023 (excluding the corresponding month-day); the Court held s.27(1) DLA includes the corresponding day, so 16 August 2023 was within time.

Sanction teardown · High Court, UK · 2025-01-25

Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet

What happened

In High Court, UK, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Appellants relied on a non-existent case summary titled Flynn v. Breitenbach to argue foreign judgments cannot be enforced after the originating state's limitation period; the Court confirmed the citation does not exist and appellants later apologised.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Appellants asserted that a court seal, notarisation, and an apostille were required to authenticate the Danish judgment for registration; the Court held the governing rules do not prescribe such methods.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Appellants claimed the Annex V certificate was incomplete and missing the certified judgment and translation; the Court found Annex V was properly issued on 10 August 2023 and the authentic copy and certified translation were provided.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Appellants alleged the Danish judgment copy was non-certified and bore the wrong logo, implying inauthenticity; the Court found the judgment authentic and the translation unimpeached.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Appellants argued the 10-year Danish limitation expired at midnight on 15 August 2023 (excluding the corresponding month-day); the Court held s.27(1) DLA includes the corresponding day, so 16 August 2023 was within time.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

No contempt, but might bear out on costs

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Approved-Judgment-Olsen-v.-Finansiel-Stabilitet-AS.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Approved-Judgment-Olsen-v.-Finansiel-Stabilitet-AS.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template