Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Mr D Rollo on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Mr D Rollo v. Marstons Trading Ltd

Court
Employment Tribunal
Jurisdiction
UK
Decided
2024-08-01
AI tool
ChatGPT
Outcome
Claim dismissed; AI material excluded from evidence under prior judicial order; no sanction but explicit judicial criticism
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimant argued the disclosure schedule had to adhere to Article 28 GDPR; the court held no such requirement exists in Tribunal Rules and could not see any breach.

Details

AI UseThe claimant sought to rely on a conversation with ChatGPT to show that the respondent’s claims about the difficulty of retrieving archived data were false.Ruling/SanctionNo formal sanction was imposed, but the judgment made clear that ChatGPT outputs are not acceptable as evidence.Key Judicial ReasoningThe Tribunal held that "a record of a ChatGPT discussion would not in my judgment be evidence that could sensibly be described as expert evidence nor could it be deemed reliable".

Sanction teardown · Employment Tribunal, UK · 2024-08-01

Mr D Rollo v. Marstons Trading Ltd

What happened

In Employment Tribunal, UK, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Claimant argued the disclosure schedule had to adhere to Article 28 GDPR; the court held no such requirement exists in Tribunal Rules and could not see any breach.

Which AI tool

ChatGPT. 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

Claim dismissed; AI material excluded from evidence under prior judicial order; no sanction but explicit judicial criticism

Additional detail

AI UseThe claimant sought to rely on a conversation with ChatGPT to show that the respondent’s claims about the difficulty of retrieving archived data were false.Ruling/SanctionNo formal sanction was imposed, but the judgment made clear that ChatGPT outputs are not acceptable as evidence.Key Judicial ReasoningThe Tribunal held that "a record of a ChatGPT discussion would not in my judgment be evidence that could sensibly be described as expert evidence nor could it be deemed reliable".

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://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/303/Mr_D_Rollo_v_Marstons_Trading_Ltd_UK_Employement_Tribunal_August_1_2024.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/303/Mr_D_Rollo_v_Marstons_Trading_Ltd_UK_Employement_Tribunal_August_1_2024.pdf

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 checkerBack 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 — $49Sanctions-motion template