AI and the Challenge Faced by Regulators: R (on the application of BEA) v Staffordshire County Council [2026] EWHC 1190 (Admin)

The facts of R (Bea) are not relevant. Of interest, however, is an observation made about the use of AI, and the strain being placed on the administrative court by an ever-increasing case load.

In response to the Council’s contention that the issue in dispute in the judicial review was academic, the Claimant – who was a litigant in person – produced a written response which referred to the issue of “academicity”. The judge declined to decide the claim and commented:

“I am unsure about the origin of the written materials which are relied upon by the Claimant. As I cite above at paragraph 31, the term used is ‘academicity’. I had not ever read that word until this week when, coincidentally, I heard an oral renewal for permission in which the claimant’s case was said to be academic. The claimant in that case appeared in person and submitted a document which was formatted in just the same way as the Claimant’s skeleton argument in this case, and included the same word: ‘academicity’. It caused me concern that I was dealing with AI-generated material… The basis of the Claimant’s written submissions is not known and I am sceptical about it. The court has to have confidence in the research and comprehension of the legal authorities which underpin a submission. My concern that AI has contributed to the written argument without reference to the key authorities may be ill-founded.”

This concern echoes numerous recent judgments. For example, a couple of weeks ago in Rafique v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 00673 (TC), the Upper Tribunal again dealt with the case of a litigant using AI. It observed he had used cases “hallucinated by AI” where “the majority of the cases relied upon by the Appellant either do not exist, do not support the propositions in the way stated in his emails, or they have been superseded by more recent case-law.”

The problem is acute. Not only may the court be misled by the misuse of AI, but there is surely a connection between AI and the increasing volume of litigation. In R (Bea) the court went on to make a civil restraint order, observing:

“This court receives a substantial and increasing workload of public law cases. The receipts increased by 35% last year, and by similar amounts the year before. If litigants behave in the way which has occurred in this case, the demands on staff and the pressure on judicial resources has a serious adverse effect on access to the court by other parties.”

The strain felt by the court system is no doubt mirrored by regulators. AI-generated complaints, referrals, appeals, and claims are bound to be a feature of the years ahead and represent a massive challenge to the regulatory sector.