Which source supports this Actmore Estate Limited v Yat Chun Catering Limited summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesActmore Estate Limited v Yat Chun Catering Limited

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

Actmore Estate Limited v Yat Chun Catering Limited

Lands Tribunal · Nov 18, 2025

Hong Kong Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations landlord tenant trial Case Dismissed

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Legal Norm | The respondent cited a purported Hong Kong statute called the Landlord and Tenant (Commercial Premises) Ordinance. The tribunal stated that the ordinance does not exist and presumed the reference was generated by artificial intelligence. Outcome: Application dismissed.

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application dismissed in Lands Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtLands Tribunal

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateNov 18, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeApplication dismissed

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Application dismissed

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Legal Norm | The respondent cited a purported Hong Kong statute called the Landlord and Tenant (Commercial Premises) Ordinance. The tribunal stated that the ordinance does not exist and presumed the reference was generated by artificial intelligence.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Actmore Estate Limited v Yat Chun Catering Limited?: Fabricated: Legal Norm | The respondent cited a purported Hong Kong statute called the Landlord and Tenant (Commercial Premises) Ordinance. The tribunal stated that the ordinance does not exist and presumed the reference was generated by artificial intelligence. Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why does Actmore Estate Limited v Yat Chun Catering Limited matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application dismissed in Lands Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Actmore Estate Limited v Yat Chun Catering Limited?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Actmore Estate Limited v Yat Chun Catering Limited summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; 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.

施姍姍 (SZE SAN SAN) v 薈娛國際有限公司 (IBEAUTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED)Lands Tribunal · Oct 16, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Wu Leshi v Cheung Long YinLands Tribunal · Mar 20, 2026same court · pro se + trial Fleming v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 4383CRT British Columbia · Aug 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et alD. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lockesfield Management Company Limited v The Leasehold and Freehold Owners of Lockesfield PlaceFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) · Dec 1, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Guertin-Giroux c. DelrueTAL Québec · Aug 6, 2026pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Sep 28, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 28, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 25, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open Lands Tribunal profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology