Chevalier-Hernandez v Poplar Dock Management Company Ltd
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) · Mar 9, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
- Record ID
- chevalier-hernandez-v-poplar-dock-management-company-ltd-2026-03-09
- Observed outcome
- The Applicant withdrew the argument; the Tribunal warned litigants to verify authorities but imposed no sanction.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | The Applicant cited a purported case supporting the proposition that pest-control treatments were qualifying works under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Tribunal and Respondent could not find the case in any legal database or law report and treated it as a fake authority. Outcome: The Applicant withdrew the argument; the Tribunal warned litigants to verify authorities but imposed no sanction.. The Applicant relied on an unidentified purported legal authority claiming that a pest-control programme constituted qualifying works requiring consultation under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Tribunal and Respondent could not locate the case in any legal database or law report, despite the authority containing purported party names, court, date, facts, legal points, judge, and citation. The Applicant withdrew the argument and said he may have found it through Google or ChatGPT. The Tribunal characterized the authority as a fake case and reminded litigants, including litigants in person, to verify that legal authorities are genuine.
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records The Applicant withdrew the argument; the Tribunal warned litigants to verify authorities but imposed no sanction.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The Applicant withdrew the argument; the Tribunal warned litigants to verify authorities but imposed no sanction. in First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The Applicant withdrew the argument; the Tribunal warned litigants to verify authorities but imposed no sanction.
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
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.