Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Hassan v ABC International Bank
Employment Tribunals · Oct 13, 2025
GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Tribunal found 'Jordi v London Business School [2022]' to be entirely fictitious; Respondent highlighted it in its citation table and relied on that to show fabricated AI output. Outcome: Costs Order. The Claimant used AI to generate case citations in his pleadings; Tribunal found 46 inaccurate or misleading citations (9 wholly fictitious, 37 misrepresentations of real cases) and concluded the conduct was reckless and unreasonable, justifying a costs order.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Costs Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Pro-se AI filings trigger costs orders; tribunals treat 46 bad citations as reckless conduct warranting fees.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Tribunal found 'Jordi v London Business School [2022]' to be entirely fictitious; Respondent highlighted it in its citation table and relied on that to show fabricated AI output. Outcome: Costs Order. The Claimant used AI to generate case citations in his pleadings; Tribunal found 46 inaccurate or misleading citations (9 wholly fictitious, 37 misrepresentations of real cases) and concluded the conduct was reckless and unreasonable, justifying a costs order.
Operational lesson
Pro-se AI filings trigger costs orders; tribunals treat 46 bad citations as reckless conduct warranting fees.
Record details
CourtEmployment Tribunals
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateOct 13, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCosts Order
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
Costs Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Tribunal found 'Jordi v London Business School [2022]' to be entirely fictitious; Respondent highlighted it in its citation table and relied on that to show fabricated AI output.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Tribunal found multiple real cases were mischaracterised (misstating holdings or drawing unjustified principles) and Respondent's citation table identified 37 such misrepresentations.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Drysdale was relied on but the Tribunal found the Claimant mis-stated its holdings as relating to citation practice; Respondent pointed this out in the citation table and Tribunal agreed.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Rathakrishnan was cited as authority for extending time based on attempts to resolve matters; Tribunal found this to be a misstatement of the case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Judge recorded that 9 of the 46 citations were wholly fictitious AI-generated cases; Respondent's table documented these fabricated authorities.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Tribunal identified citation 'Remploy Ltd v Abbott [2014] ICR 1114' as non-existent and therefore a fabricated citation (real related case: Remploy Ltd v Abbott [2015] 4 WLUK 492).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Hale v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust was relied on via an online summary but Tribunal found the Claimant's use materially inaccurate and not supportive of his proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Hassan v ABC International Bank?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Tribunal found 'Jordi v London Business School [2022]' to be entirely fictitious; Respondent highlighted it in its citation table and relied on that to show fabricated AI output. Outcome: Costs Order. The Claimant used AI to generate case citations in his pleadings; Tribunal found 46 inaccurate or misleading citations (9 wholly fictitious, 37 misrepresentations of real cases) and concluded the conduct was reckless and unreasonable, justifying a costs order.
- Why does Hassan v ABC International Bank matter for legal AI risk?
- Pro-se AI filings trigger costs orders; tribunals treat 46 bad citations as reckless conduct warranting fees.
- What does the public record establish about Hassan v ABC International Bank?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other 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 Hassan v ABC International Bank 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.