Benedict Morillo successful in £600,000 chronic pain claim which featured suspected AI-generated fake authorities
1st Sep 2025
Benedict Morillo was instructed in Roberts v Rishton Pharmacies Ltd (County Court at Preston, 11-14 August 2025 before HHJ Beech) by David Weir of DAC Beachcroft. Benedict acted for the Defendant throughout the matter, from the pleading of the claim until the conclusion of trial.
Benedict successfully obtained a mid-trial discontinuance from the Claimant following his cross-examination of the Claimant.
The Claimant alleged that she slipped at work on a mossy paving stone which the Defendant employer had failed to properly clean and risk assess. The Claimant suffered a broken tibia and fibula after her slip, which – she alleged – developed into a chronic pain condition which meant that she would be unable to return to employment for the rest of her working life and would mean she required a degree of ongoing care for the rest of her life.
The Defendant denied liability on various bases, including that the locus of the accident was both not on its premises and not on any moss, and it challenged the medical causation of the pain condition and legal causation of various of the claimed heads of loss. Both parties’ pain medicine experts took an entirely different view of causation and there was very little agreement between them. The causation issues were complex as the Claimant had a variety of comorbidities and, in the view of the Defendant’s expert, other non-accident explanations for her alleged ongoing pain.
The Claimant’s factual evidence lasted a full day. Her cross-examination served as a salutary reminder of the potent role that medical records and CCTV footage can play in undermining a Claimant’s credibility when the reported symptoms and ongoing effects on lifestyle do not match the documentary record. In turn, inroads on credibility arising out of causation and quantum issues can be used to substantially undermine an otherwise credible case on liability. The Claimant’s credibility was in such issue after her cross-examination that her evidence on the facts going to liability, such as where and how she slipped, and the alleged health and safety shortcomings of her employer must have held little weight.
The claim was also notable for an interim application made by the Defendant for permission to rely upon lately disclosed CCTV footage being resisted by the Claimant’s solicitors by reference to apparently fake procedural authorities, which were suspected to be AI-generated. The Court, of its own volition, ordered her solicitors to file a statement explaining how those authorities ended up in their witness statement. It represents an early instance of the Court following the approach advocated for by the High Court in R (ex parte Ayinde) v LB Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) by actively enquiring legal representatives whether and how AI-generated information might have been put before the Court.
