Chanda v Royal Mail Group Ltd
Employment Tribunal · Jul 28, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Employment Tribunal
- Record ID
- chanda-v-royal-mail-group-ltd-2025-07-28
- Observed outcome
- The respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused, though the tribunal formally found the claimant's representative had engaged in unreasonable conduct.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Employment Tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim. While the tribunal found that the claimant's representative engaged in unreasonable conduct—specifically by submitting false, potentially AI-generated case citations and failing to attend the hearing—it determined that a fair hearing remained possible within the remaining trial time.
The tribunal reasoned that while the representative's conduct was unreasonable, the threshold for striking out a claim requires a finding that a fair hearing is no longer possible. The tribunal determined that sufficient time remained in the trial window to complete evidence and cross-examination, making strike-out a disproportionate remedy.
UK tribunals require claimants to account for every citation; concede inability to locate before oral argument, not after.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's ET1 claim under Rules 37(1)(b) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, citing unreasonable conduct and the inability to hold a fair hearing. The tribunal refused the application.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The tribunal noted the citations appeared to be generated by AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence and accuracy of every case citation before submission to the tribunal.
- Ensure all disclosed material is provided in accordance with tribunal directions to avoid findings of unreasonable conduct.
- Maintain a clear audit trail of all research and document disclosure processes to defend against allegations of procedural bad faith.
- Acknowledge and correct errors regarding case law or disclosure immediately upon discovery rather than during oral argument.