Background
The case arises from private law Children Act 1989 proceedings about a child, D, born January 2023, between the parents. The father applied for child arrangements in May 2023 and the mother opposed, alleging domestic abuse and also applying for a non-molestation order. A three day fact-finding hearing took place in October 2024 before District Judge Hatton, with both parties unrepresented and QLRs appointed for cross-examination. The district judge’s judgment dated 5 November 2024 largely rejected the mother’s allegations as not proven, dismissed the non-molestation application, and made case management directions towards future contact planning. After permission to appeal was initially refused on paper and then renewed, the mother sent a recusal request to District Judge Hatton in January 2025, enclosing a lengthy ‘Grounds for Recusal’ document alleging apparent bias. The district judge then made orders on 6 February 2025 recusing himself and transferring the case to St Helens, without giving reasons and without hearing from the father. In July 2025, HHJ Greensmith allowed the mother’s appeal and set aside the fact-finding judgment, not by deciding the permitted appeal grounds, but because the district judge had recused himself without reasons and the process lacked transparency. This led to three linked appeals culminating in the Court of Appeal hearing on 23 October 2025.
AI Interaction
The mother accepted that she used artificial intelligence to help draft her ‘Grounds for Recusal’ document, and the Court noted that some cited authorities were not authority for the stated propositions and some did not exist (#paras 26 to 29, and #para 54). The Court gave an explicit warning about AI ‘hallucinations’ in legal argument, stressing that AI is not an authoritative or infallible body of legal knowledge and that all parties, represented and unrepresented, owe a duty to the court to ensure that cases cited are genuine and actually support the proposition advanced (#para 83).
Notes
The Court flagged concrete litigation risk from AI-assisted drafting through false or misused authorities, and restated the duty to verify citations (para 83).