AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 5, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 3, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesBrook House (Henley) RTM Company Limited v Henley Brook Limited
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Brook House (Henley) RTM Company Limited v Henley Brook Limited

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) · Apr 13, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The Respondent relied on a purported paragraph 28 of Gala Unity, but the Tribunal noted that the judgment extends only to paragraph 19 and contains no such paragraph.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes 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 fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The Respondent relied on a purported paragraph 28 of Gala Unity, but the Tribunal noted that the judgment extends only to paragraph 19 and contains no such paragraph.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateApr 13, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
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

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

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The Respondent relied on a purported paragraph 28 of Gala Unity, but the Tribunal noted that the judgment extends only to paragraph 19 and contains no such paragraph.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | The Respondent relied on paragraph 41 of FirstPort for a proposition about appurtenant property and service of the claim notice, but the Tribunal found that paragraph 41 contained no relevant supporting content.
  3. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The counter-notice attributed a 25% non-residential internal-floor-area test to section 72(1)(b), but the Tribunal found that provision did not say this and identified section 72(6) and Schedule 6 as the relevant statutory route.
  4. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The Respondent treated external car-park and access areas as part of the functional premises for the internal-floor-area calculation, producing an asserted 52.68% non-residential proportion. The Tribunal found those areas had no internal floor area and had to be disregarded.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Brook House (Henley) RTM Company Limited v Henley Brook Limited?
Fabricated: Case Law | The Respondent relied on a purported paragraph 28 of Gala Unity, but the Tribunal noted that the judgment extends only to paragraph 19 and contains no such paragraph.
Why does Brook House (Henley) RTM Company Limited v Henley Brook Limited matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Brook House (Henley) RTM Company Limited v Henley Brook Limited?
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 Brook House (Henley) RTM Company Limited v Henley Brook Limited 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.

133 Blackstock Road v Assethold LimitedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) · Nov 17, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityLockesfield Management Company Limited v The Leasehold and Freehold Owners of Lockesfield PlaceFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) · Dec 1, 2025same court · fake citations + trialNoella P. Turgeon v. FHLMCD. New Hampshire · Aug 26, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)AndDone, LLC v. Shante Gaines; Reset Financial Group, LLCW.D. Missouri · Aug 25, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Rivard v. Vermont Dept. of CorrectionsSC Vermont · Aug 14, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Garry Chapman v. City of Priceville, et al.N.D. Alabama · Aug 12, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)