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 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
M Peiu v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board
Employment Tribunal (Swansea) · Dec 30, 2025
GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant relied on multiple case citations produced via ChatGPT in her written submissions but could not provide citations or copies; Tribunal and counsel could not locate them and did not rely on those authorities.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant relied on multiple case citations produced via ChatGPT in her written submissions but could not provide citations or copies; Tribunal and counsel could not locate them and did not rely on those authorities.
- Why it matters now
- UK tribunals disregard ChatGPT-sourced authorities without sanction when filer is pro se.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant relied on multiple case citations produced via ChatGPT in her written submissions but could not provide citations or copies; Tribunal and counsel could not locate them and did not rely on those authorities.
Operational lesson
UK tribunals disregard ChatGPT-sourced authorities without sanction when filer is pro se.
Record details
CourtEmployment Tribunal (Swansea)
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 30, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant relied on multiple case citations produced via ChatGPT in her written submissions but could not provide citations or copies; Tribunal and counsel could not locate them and did not rely on those authorities.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in M Peiu v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant relied on multiple case citations produced via ChatGPT in her written submissions but could not provide citations or copies; Tribunal and counsel could not locate them and did not rely on those authorities.
- Why does M Peiu v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board matter for legal AI risk?
- UK tribunals disregard ChatGPT-sourced authorities without sanction when filer is pro se.
- What does the public record establish about M Peiu v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this M Peiu v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; 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.