A recent decision from the Scottish courts is a timely reminder of why court documents need to be properly prepared, and why that job is best left to an experienced solicitor.

Sheriff Principal Nigel Ross dismissed an appeal after finding that some of the written submissions before him were “incoherent” and “irrelevant”, while others were “misleading” and “poorly focused”. 

Most strikingly, two of the cases cited in the submissions appeared not to exist at all.

What happened in the case

The appeal was brought by Susan Bakshi in a dispute with property management firm James Gibb Management Ltd. 

Ms Bakshi had sought £4,995, arguing it was unfair that she was asked to contribute to insurance costs for properties she did not own. 

Her claim was rejected, and the sheriff principal found that the management company had not acted unlawfully.

In his written judgment, Sheriff Ross described the submissions before him as running to 11 pages of “apparently software-generated but misleading, poorly focused, over-generalised and overstated argument”. 

He went on to note the more serious problem: “two of the cases cited in submissions appear to be non-existent”.

The sheriff was clear that responsibility for what goes before a court cannot be outsourced, whether to a third party or to a piece of software. 

As he put it, “every litigant must take responsibility for their own submissions”, and presenting false material to influence a judicial decision, knowingly or carelessly, “must raise fundamental questions of breach of duty to the court”. 

The appeal was refused, and Ms Bakshi was ordered to pay the expenses of the hearing.

Why properly prepared documentation matters

This case is a useful illustration of a point that applies well beyond AI-generated arguments: what you put in front of a sheriff or judge matters, and getting it wrong has real consequences.

Court documents, whether pleadings, written submissions, or the case law relied upon, have to be accurate, relevant and properly evidenced. 

A submission that is poorly focused or overstated does not just fail to persuade. It can actively undermine a litigant’s credibility with the court and, as this case shows, lead to an expenses award against them.

Citing case law that does not exist is a particular risk with generative AI tools, which can produce confident-sounding but entirely fabricated citations. 

But the underlying lesson is broader. Every document lodged with a court, from an initial writ to a final written submission, needs to withstand scrutiny. 

Getting the law right, applying it to the correct facts, and presenting it clearly is a skill that takes training and experience. There is no shortcut that avoids that responsibility falling back on the litigant.

How Rollos can help

Rollos has been advising and representing clients in Fife and Tayside since 1899, with offices in St Andrews, Cupar and Glenrothes. 

Our Disputes & Litigation team has extensive experience preparing cases for court and representing clients in civil disputes, family actions and employment tribunals, including before the Sheriff Courts in Dundee, Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline and Perth.

Whether you are considering raising an action, defending a claim, or appealing a decision, our solicitors will make sure your case is properly prepared, correctly pleaded and clearly argued, so your position is put to the court as strongly as it can be.

If you are involved in a dispute or considering court action, speak to our Disputes & Litigation team before you act.