Hassan v ABC International Bank
Employment Tribunals · Oct 13, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Employment Tribunals
- Record ID
- hassan-v-abc-international-bank-2025-10-13
- Observed outcome
- Costs Order
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Pro-se AI filings trigger costs orders; tribunals treat 46 bad citations as reckless conduct warranting fees.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Costs Order
naturalandartificiallaw.com
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
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 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.
Latest evidence review: Metadata Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.