A claimant was being fed answers through his smart glasses while giving evidence in the high court in London, a judge has found.

Laimonas Jakštys was “untruthful in denying his use of the smart glasses” and his witness statements “were clearly prepared by others”, the insolvency judge Raquel Agnello KC ruled.

Agnello said that when Jakštys was giving evidence, he paused before replying to questions, as first reported by Legal Futures. The defence counsel, Sarah Walker, told the judge she could hear interference, which was confirmed by Jakštys’s interpreter, and asked that he take off his glasses.

Jakštys was testifying in a case brought by himself and the Lithuanian company UAB Business Enterprise against the Insolvency and Companies List.

Agnello said in her judgment: “It was later ascertained that Mr Jakštys was wearing smart glasses. I asked him to remove them before continuing with his cross examination. After a few further questions, when the interpreter was in the process of translating a question, Mr Jakštys’s mobile phone started broadcasting out loud with the voice of someone talking.

“There was clearly someone on the mobile phone talking to Mr Jakštys. He then removed his mobile phone from his inner jacket pocket. At my direction, the smart glasses and his mobile were placed into the hands of his solicitor.”

Agnello said that when questioned about what had happened during his evidence “his explanation was that he thought it was ChatGPT which caused the voice to be heard from his mobile phone once his smart glasses had been removed. That lacks any credibility.

“In my judgment, the smart glasses were clearly connected to his mobile phone during his cross examination because no voice was heard out loud until his smart glasses were removed and disconnected.”

Walker submitted that Jakštys was being coached by the Lithuanian lawyer Dr Paulius Miliauskas, who Jakštys said had helped him prepare his witness statement but denied was acting for him – a denial that was rejected by Agnello. Miliauskas was the only person watching the hearing via video link, until the link was terminated at the judge’s instruction.

Agnello said: “I do not have to determine who was coaching Mr Jakštys, but I accept that Mr Jakštys was being assisted or coached in his replies to questions put to him during cross-examination until this was stopped. Not only have I held that Mr Jakštys was untruthful in denying his use of the smart glasses … but the effect of this is that his evidence is unreliable and untruthful.”

She said that once his smart glasses were removed he frequently played for time because “it was clear to me he simply did not know what his reply should be”.

In conclusion she rejected Jakštys’s evidence “in its entirety” and found for the defendants. Walker told Legal Futures: “This was a career first for me but, with technological advances, may well be something that litigators have to deal with much more frequently in the coming years.”