Mark Jennings v NatWest Group PLC
Sheriff Appeal Court · Nov 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Sheriff Appeal Court
- Record ID
- mark-jennings-v-natwest-group-plc-2025-11-21
- Observed outcome
- None Adjudicated
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed that at least three cases cited in the appellant's ChatGPT-generated submissions appear to be non-existent; the court treated those citations as unreliable.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed that at least three cases cited in the appellant's ChatGPT-generated submissions appear to be non-existent; the court treated those citations as unreliable.
Scottish appellate courts are now naming ChatGPT submissions as unreliable — expect the same scrutiny for counsel.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Metadata Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.