Mr J Harrison v Mr D May t/a Leeds Gymnastics Academy
Employment Tribunals (Leeds) · Dec 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Employment Tribunals (Leeds)
- Record ID
- mr-j-harrison-v-mr-d-may-ta-leeds-gymnastics-academy-2025-12-10
- Observed outcome
- The tribunal found the respondent's conduct unreasonable and disruptive, ordering him to pay the claimant £2,178 for preparation time, subject to a stay pending the outcome of an EAT appeal.
- Known monetary consequence
- £2,178
Why this matter warrants attention
The tribunal sanctioned the respondent for unreasonable conduct, specifically the submission of fabricated case law generated by ChatGPT without verification. The tribunal awarded the claimant £2,178 in preparation time costs, with payment stayed pending the resolution of the respondent's appeal to the EAT.
Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's written submissions contained numerous non-existent case law references; respondent admitted he used ChatGPT to generate the submissions and did not verify citations. Tribunal found at least half of the references were non-existent.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Employment Tribunals (Leeds), with the listed outcome: Tribunal awarded claimant a preparation time order of £2,178; payment stayed pending outcome of EAT appeal..
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- £2,178
- Procedural posture
- Judgment issued by the Employment Tribunal (Leeds) on 24 October 2025, following a hearing on the same date, with payment of the awarded preparation time order stayed pending the outcome of an EAT appeal.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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
Respondent admitted using ChatGPT to produce representations without checking results.
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: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.