Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970
Civil Resolution Tribunal · Feb 14, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Civil Resolution Tribunal
- Record ID
- geismayr-v-the-owners-strata-plan-kas-1970-2025-02-14
- Observed outcome
- The applicants' claims were dismissed, and the AI-generated citations were disregarded by the tribunal.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The tribunal dismissed the applicants' claims after finding that the strata's refusal to retroactively approve unauthorized alterations was not significantly unfair. The decision-maker explicitly rejected the applicants' reliance on ten case law authorities, nine of which were nonexistent and one of which was misrepresented, identifying them as likely hallucinations from Microsoft Copilot.
The tribunal reasoned that the applicants failed to prove significant unfairness because they purchased the unit with notice of the strata's prior refusal and the existence of a stop-work order. Regarding the AI-generated content, the tribunal noted that nine cited cases did not exist and the tenth, while existing, was irrelevant to the issue of unauthorized alterations, leading the member to conclude the citations were AI hallucinations.
Microsoft Copilot hallucinates case citations as reliably as ChatGPT — no consumer AI tool is safe for legal research.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucination
- Misrepresentation_of_authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Copilot
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Final decision on the merits by the Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissing the applicants' claims.
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 applicants identified the source of their cases as a conversation with Copilot.
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
- Independently verify the existence and content of every case citation provided by an AI tool.
- Cross-reference cited authorities against official legal databases to ensure they support the specific legal propositions asserted.
- Maintain a record of the research process to ensure transparency regarding the sources of legal arguments.
- Review tribunal or court rules regarding the submission of evidence and the duty of candor when using AI-assisted research.