What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent relied on Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [2012] UKUT 366 (LC); Tribunal could not find this authority and directed the Respondent to produce it; none was provided and Tribunal concluded it apparently does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent subsequently cited Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1372, but the Court of Appeal decision concerned a different issue (management of separate properties) and did not support the Respondent's proposition about retained insurance rights. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent relied on Qdime Ltd v Bath Building (Swindon) Management Co Ltd [2014] UKUT 0261 (LC) as supporting the proposition that lease terms prevail over RTM management functions; Tribunal found the case existed but did not involve RTM and did not support that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27 as confirming that RTM rights do not override express lease provisions; Tribunal found the Supreme Court decision concerned a failure to serve a claim notice and did not establish the principle asserted.

Sanction teardown · First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), UK · 2025-11-17

133 Blackstock Road v Assethold Limited

What happened

In First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), UK, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Fabricated (Case Law)

Respondent relied on Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [2012] UKUT 366 (LC); Tribunal could not find this authority and directed the Respondent to produce it; none was provided and Tribunal concluded it apparently does not exist.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Respondent subsequently cited Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1372, but the Court of Appeal decision concerned a different issue (management of separate properties) and did not support the Respondent's proposition about retained insurance rights.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Respondent relied on Qdime Ltd v Bath Building (Swindon) Management Co Ltd [2014] UKUT 0261 (LC) as supporting the proposition that lease terms prevail over RTM management functions; Tribunal found the case existed but did not involve RTM and did not support that proposition.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Respondent cited A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27 as confirming that RTM rights do not override express lease provisions; Tribunal found the Supreme Court decision concerned a failure to serve a claim notice and did not establish the principle asserted.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Show Cause (monetary penalty: 1 .)

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://naturalandartificiallaw.com/thirty-uk-hallucinated-citations/#Hassan_v_ABC_International_Bank_PLC, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template