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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Mr D Rollo v. Marstons Trading Ltd
Employment Tribunal · Aug 1, 2024
GBEditorial impact: lowpro semisrepresented authorityemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimant argued the disclosure schedule had to adhere to Article 28 GDPR; the court held no such requirement exists in Tribunal Rules and could not see any breach. Outcome: Claim dismissed; AI material excluded from evidence under prior judicial order; no sanction but explicit judicial criticism.
- Why the court cared
- The Tribunal held that "a record of a ChatGPT discussion would not in my judgment be evidence that could sensibly be described as expert evidence nor could it be deemed reliable"
- Why it matters now
- ChatGPT conversation logs are not expert evidence; tribunals will exclude them outright.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimant argued the disclosure schedule had to adhere to Article 28 GDPR; the court held no such requirement exists in Tribunal Rules and could not see any breach. Outcome: Claim dismissed; AI material excluded from evidence under prior judicial order; no sanction but explicit judicial criticism.
AI Use
The claimant sought to rely on a conversation with ChatGPT to show that the respondent’s claims about the difficulty of retrieving archived data were false.
Ruling/Sanction
No formal sanction was imposed, but the judgment made clear that ChatGPT outputs are not acceptable as evidence.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The Tribunal held that "a record of a ChatGPT discussion would not in my judgment be evidence that could sensibly be described as expert evidence nor could it be deemed reliable".
Operational lesson
ChatGPT conversation logs are not expert evidence; tribunals will exclude them outright.
Record details
CourtEmployment Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateAug 1, 2024
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeClaim dismissed; AI material excluded from evidence under prior judicial order; no sanction but explicit judicial criticism
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
Claim dismissed; AI material excluded from evidence under prior judicial order; no sanction but explicit judicial criticism
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.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimant argued the disclosure schedule had to adhere to Article 28 GDPR; the court held no such requirement exists in Tribunal Rules and could not see any breach.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mr D Rollo v. Marstons Trading Ltd?
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimant argued the disclosure schedule had to adhere to Article 28 GDPR; the court held no such requirement exists in Tribunal Rules and could not see any breach. Outcome: Claim dismissed; AI material excluded from evidence under prior judicial order; no sanction but explicit judicial criticism.
- Why does Mr D Rollo v. Marstons Trading Ltd matter for legal AI risk?
- ChatGPT conversation logs are not expert evidence; tribunals will exclude them outright.
- What does the public record establish about Mr D Rollo v. Marstons Trading Ltd?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Mr D Rollo v. Marstons Trading Ltd 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.