Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited
First-tier Tribunal · Oct 17, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The First-tier Tribunal sanctioned the Respondent 227 GBP for unreasonable conduct after the Respondent submitted fabricated case law and statutory provisions generated by an AI tool. The Tribunal found the Respondent relied on AI without independent verification, causing the Applicants to waste resources researching non-existent authorities.
- Why the court cared
- The Tribunal reasoned that while the Respondent lacked the intent to deceive, her reliance on AI-generated material without independent verification was objectively unreasonable. This conduct necessitated a costs order to compensate the Applicants for time and resources spent addressing baseless arguments.
- Why it matters now
- AI will invent statutory subsections wholesale — always verify every code provision you quote.
Why this matter is tracked
In a Rent Repayment Order application, the Respondent submitted a fabricated Upper Tribunal decision, 'Khan v Mehmood,' and a non-existent Section 99(3) of the Housing Act 2004 to support a mixed-use property exemption. The First-tier Tribunal determined these were AI-generated fabrications. During a preliminary hearing, the Respondent admitted to relying exclusively on AI tools for legal research and submissions, which provided false assurances regarding the authenticity of the cited authority. While the Tribunal found the Respondent did not intend to mislead the court, it concluded that the reliance on unverified AI-generated material constituted unreasonable conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay 227 GBP in costs to cover the Applicants' expenses incurred in addressing the baseless legal arguments.
AI will invent statutory subsections wholesale — always verify every code provision you quote.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Respondent admitted to using AI tools, but the specific software was not named.
The matter originated as an application for a Rent Repayment Order. A preliminary hearing was held on 12 August 2025 to address the Respondent's submission of fabricated legal authorities, resulting in a costs order. A final decision was issued on 17 October 2025.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent submitted a purported Upper Tribunal decision 'Khan v Mehmood' as legal authority; Tribunal found no such decision exists and concluded it was fabricated by AI.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Respondent relied on a non-existent Section 99(3) of the Housing Act 2004 to claim a mixed-use exemption; Tribunal found s99(3) does not exist and the wording was fabricated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited?
- The First-tier Tribunal sanctioned the Respondent 227 GBP for unreasonable conduct after the Respondent submitted fabricated case law and statutory provisions generated by an AI tool. The Tribunal found the Respondent relied on AI without independent verification, causing the Applicants to waste resources researching non-existent authorities.
- Why does Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited matter for legal AI risk?
- AI will invent statutory subsections wholesale — always verify every code provision you quote.
- What does the public record establish about Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B 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 Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B 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.