AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 29, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAB v (1) AC (2) A Company
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

AB v (1) AC (2) A Company

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law; linked document: naturalandartificiallaw.com. What AI Vortex adds.

Reading Employment Tribunal · Sep 17, 2025

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited Gilbert v Department of Health [2010] IRLR 830. The tribunal stated that the case probably did not exist and could not be found by either the judge or the respondents' representative. The claimant, who represented herself, accepted that she had used AI (identified in the judgment as “ChatGBT”) in preparing submissions.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Reading Employment Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited Gilbert v Department of Health [2010] IRLR 830. The tribunal stated that the case probably did not exist and could not be found by either the judge or the respondents' representative. The claimant, who represented herself, accepted that she had used AI (identified in the judgment as “ChatGBT”) in preparing submissions.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Reading Employment Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtReading Employment Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 17, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGBT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGBT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited Gilbert v Department of Health [2010] IRLR 830. The tribunal stated that the case probably did not exist and could not be found by either the judge or the respondents' representative.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant referred to Palihakkara v BT as a 1997 case with an incorrect citation. The tribunal identified the relevant authority as Palihakkara v British Telecommunications plc [2006] UKEAT 0185/06, concerning the need for settlement agreements to specify the claims compromised.

Questions this record answers

What happened in AB v (1) AC (2) A Company?
Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited Gilbert v Department of Health [2010] IRLR 830. The tribunal stated that the case probably did not exist and could not be found by either the judge or the respondents' representative. The claimant, who represented herself, accepted that she had used AI (identified in the judgment as “ChatGBT”) in preparing submissions.
Why does AB v (1) AC (2) A Company matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Reading Employment Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about AB v (1) AC (2) A Company?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this AB v (1) AC (2) A Company summary?
The recorded source is naturalandartificiallaw.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

CX v Secretary of State for JusticeReading Employment Tribunal · Jun 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBoyd v. Beachwood City School District Board of EducationN.D. Ohio · Oct 23, 2026pro se + fake citationsPaananen v. Peckham, Inc.W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2026pro se + fake citationsMoore v. Jackson Walker LLP, et al.S.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2026pro se + fake citationsWeyland v. Second Judicial District Court, et al.D. Nevada · Oct 20, 2026pro se + fake citationsHadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, et al.AC Maryland · Oct 16, 2026pro se + fake citations

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.