Dr C Mallon v Steer Energy Solutions Limited
Birmingham Employment Tribunal · Jun 15, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Birmingham Employment Tribunal
- Record ID
- dr-c-mallon-v-steer-energy-solutions-limited-2024-06-15
- Observed outcome
- The claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs; the AI-generated submissions were cited as contributing to unreasonable conduct and wasted costs, but no separate penalty was imposed specifically for hallucination.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | The tribunal stated that the claimant’s AI-generated submissions created non-existent case law and precedent, rendering the submissions unreliable and confusing; no individual fabricated authority was identified in the judgment. Outcome: The claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs; the AI-generated submissions were cited as contributing to unreasonable conduct and wasted costs, but no separate penalty was imposed specifically for hallucination.. The claimant submitted lengthy correspondence and attachments relying on several unidentified AI generators. The tribunal found that the submissions were often highly unreliable and literally created non-existent case law and precedent, causing confusion and additional work. The court treated this approach as part of the claimant’s unreasonable conduct in the proceedings and reaffirmed a £7,500 costs order, while making no separate sanction specifically for the fabricated authorities.
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records The claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs; the AI-generated submissions were cited as contributing to unreasonable conduct and wasted costs, but no separate penalty was imposed specifically for hallucination.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs; the AI-generated submissions were cited as contributing to unreasonable conduct and wasted costs, but no separate penalty was imposed specifically for hallucination. in Birmingham Employment Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- The claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs; the AI-generated submissions were cited as contributing to unreasonable conduct and wasted costs, but no separate penalty was imposed specifically for hallucination.
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 current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.