AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 29, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesCX v Secretary of State for Justice
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

CX v Secretary of State for Justice

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law; linked document: naturalandartificiallaw.com. What AI Vortex adds.

Reading Employment Tribunal · Jun 15, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Five of the six cases cited by the Claimant in support of an extension of time could not be identified because they did not exist. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission that they were fabricated authorities.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations 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 pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Reading Employment Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Five of the six cases cited by the Claimant in support of an extension of time could not be identified because they did not exist. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission that they were fabricated authorities.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Reading Employment Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtReading Employment Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 15, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Five of the six cases cited by the Claimant in support of an extension of time could not be identified because they did not exist. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission that they were fabricated authorities.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | The genuine authority Barber v Somerset CC was cited as supporting an extension of time where crucial evidence had been withheld, but the Tribunal found that it concerned a different subject matter and did not support the proposition for which it was relied upon.

Questions this record answers

What happened in CX v Secretary of State for Justice?
Fabricated: Case Law | Five of the six cases cited by the Claimant in support of an extension of time could not be identified because they did not exist. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission that they were fabricated authorities.
Why does CX v Secretary of State for Justice matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Reading Employment Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about CX v Secretary of State for Justice?
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 CX v Secretary of State for Justice 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.

AB v (1) AC (2) A CompanyReading Employment Tribunal · Sep 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsCredit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho and anotherDistrict Court · Sep 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedKrystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.E.D. Michigan · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedBrantford (City) v. Doolittle, 2026 ONCJ 440Ontario CJ · Jul 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedCCDP v. Canada AG & Frantz Saint-JeanFederal Court (Canada) · Jul 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedIII SA/Kr 488/26WSA w Krakowie · Jul 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.