Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited
First-tier Tribunal · Oct 17, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- First-tier Tribunal
- Record ID
- chi-keung-lee-others-v-blackpool-bb-limited-2025-10-17
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal issued a 227 GBP costs order against the Respondent for unreasonable conduct, in addition to a Rent Repayment Order of 5,239.75 GBP.
- Known monetary consequence
- £227
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
AI will invent statutory subsections wholesale — always verify every code provision you quote.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- £227
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 Respondent admitted to using AI tools, but the specific software was not named.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all legal citations and statutory references generated by AI tools.
- Establish a review process for pro se submissions to identify potential AI-generated hallucinations early in the proceedings.
- Document the source of legal research to ensure accountability for the accuracy of cited authorities.