IL | District Court of Nof HaGalil–Nazareth
Docket: T.A. 66123-10-25 • first instance
2026-01-11
T.A. 66123-10-25 Alami Nator Electricity Ltd. v. Nof Ginosar Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. et al.
Unspecified generative AI tool (suspected) no_human_verification; fake_case_citation
I. Executive Summary
In an application for an interim injunction to prevent a call on an autonomous bank guarantee, the court granted the temporary injunction pending the main proceedings. However, during the costs analysis the court addressed allegations that applicant’s counsel cited non-existent case law apparently generated by an AI system. The court characterised the presentation of non-existent judgments as irresponsible and misleading, and held that this conduct warranted a procedural consequence on costs. Despite the applicant’s success on the injunction, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.
II. Conduct Analysis
Applicant’s counsel presented to the court purported precedents that were not real; the opposing party asserted they were fabricated by an AI system and counsel did not provide a specific response on that point.
III. Legal Foundations
Not specified (court exercised costs discretion and stressed the duty to verify cited authorities).
IV. Key Facts
Proceedings concerned an autonomous bank guarantee (approx. NIS 621,653) linked to renovation works at a hotel. The court granted a temporary injunction against calling the guarantee. In the costs section, the judge noted that counsel had presented judgments that do not exist; the respondent argued they were generated by an AI tool. The court referenced the seriousness of misleading the court and the other side in this manner.
V. Consequences & Sanction
Temporary injunction granted; costs denied (each side bears its own costs) due to AI-fabricated citations issue.