The increasing use of AI-powered legal support tools by litigants in person has moved sharply into focus following a recent County Court decision in which a suspected fraudulent employer's liability claim was struck out following non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The case raises pressing questions about the potential risks posed by consumer-facing AI-powered legal services in contentious litigation.
NFU Mutual recently supported one of its customers in defending a claim brought by a litigant in person who had relied extensively on Grapple Law, an AI-driven legal assistance platform. The platform markets itself on the basis that "everyone deserves free and fair access to justice… cost and complexity should never stand in the way of protecting your rights" and assists users with the creation of legal letters.
In this case, the claimant issued proceedings that the court subsequently found to disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. DAC Beachcroft's CSG applied for strike out on the grounds that the claim was an abuse of process; failed to disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and that there had been significant failures to comply with a rule or practice direction, including:
- A clear disregard for the primary limitation period
- Failure to comply with CPR Part 16 requirements for statements of case
- Inadequate particulars, with key facts omitted or pleaded unclearly
- Failure to serve medical evidence or a Schedule of Loss
- Failure to engage with pre-action protocols
- Attempts to introduce evidence and arguments outside the proper procedural framework
Of note, the language and structure of the pleadings bore hallmarks of automated generation, including the prompts given by the AI tool to the claimant in respect of various contentious issues.
Following strike out pursuant to CPR 44.15, the claimant was ordered to pay adverse costs of £3,500 to the defendant.
While the judgment stopped short of criticising the technology itself, the outcome serves as a clear warning about over-reliance on automated tools. Such platforms are not a substitute for professional legal advice, particularly in contested proceedings where procedural compliance and legal analysis are critical and it is essential that defendants take robust steps to defend such claims, where it is appropriate to do so. The decision underscores that AI-generated outputs may lack the nuance, accuracy, and contextual judgment required in litigation. Errors in pleadings are not merely technical — they can be fatal to a claim.
For defendants, the case offers several practical takeaways in cases involving AI:
- Early identification of claims that may have been AI-generated or inadequately pleaded can inform robust strike-out or summary judgment strategies.
- Courts remain willing to enforce compliance rigorously, even against unrepresented parties.
- Costs recovery remains available where claims are improperly brought or defended.
As AI continues to reshape the legal landscape, this decision serves as a timely reminder of its limits. The courts have signalled unequivocally that procedural rules cannot be sidestepped by automation, and that litigants who do so face significant consequences. The promise of AI in law is real — but so too are the risks when it is used without proper understanding or oversight.
Claire Laver, Head of Fraud, CSG: "Working with automated tools and AI technology is essential for any successful legal professional practicing today but over reliance on it by lay people seeking to represent themselves may be a costly mistake. We have read with interest about the HR consultant who won at trial in June 2026 using a Regulated AI lawyer. The defeat of the AI lawyer in this claim may also be an industry first and should serve as a cautionary tale to others seeking to rely wholly on it."
David Phillips, Claims Validation Technical Manager, NFU Mutual: "AI has the potential to deliver real value when it is used responsibly, with the right intent and appropriate oversight. However, this case is a clear reminder that poor use of AI can expose weak decision-making, inflate the perceived value of a claim and damage the credibility of the person relying on it. We were right to support our customer in defending a claim that was unmeritorious and pursued through an inappropriate reliance on automated tools. The outcome reinforces the importance of challenging claims robustly where the evidence and circumstances justify it, and of ensuring that technology supports fair outcomes rather than distorting them."
For more information or advice, please contact one of our experts in our Counter Fraud Team.
