HomeCasesMrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others

County Court at Dudley · Apr 23, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Incorrect neutral citation C v C [2021] EWCA Civ 162 used to support unrelated propositions (totally without merit orders and amendment of pleading); the neutral citation actually relates to R (Children: Control of Court Documents). Court flagged this as a mis-citation suggestive of AI use. Outcome: SRA Referral.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether cited material supported the proposition attributed to it. The tracked outcome is SRA Referral; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects misrepresented authority and contract involving Unidentified with SRA Referral in County Court at Dudley, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects misrepresented authority and contract involving Unidentified with SRA Referral in County Court at Dudley, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtCounty Court at Dudley

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateApr 23, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSRA Referral

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

SRA Referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Incorrect neutral citation C v C [2021] EWCA Civ 162 used to support unrelated propositions (totally without merit orders and amendment of pleading); the neutral citation actually relates to R (Children: Control of Court Documents). Court flagged this as a mis-citation suggestive of AI use.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Grace v Black Horse Limited cited as [2014] EWCA Civ 1091 when that neutral citation actually relates to R (on the application of Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; the correct case was cited elsewhere but this instance was wrongly attributed.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Lloyds TSB Bank plc v Markandan & Uddin [2012] EWCA Civ 65 was deployed in relation to summary judgment with an unclear relevance; the same odd comment 'Your case contained disputed facts about re-entry' appeared, raising suspicion of AI-generated text.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Al Saud v Apex Global Management Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1106 was cited in support of summary judgment despite lack of relevance; court treated this as another incorrect/irrelevant authority placed before it.
Misrepresented: Other | Authorities Document contained AI‑style, out‑of‑context language (e.g. 'Relevance: your client was a litigant in person' and repeated editorial comments), suggesting content produced by an AI assistant and not checked before filing.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Incorrect neutral citation C v C [2021] EWCA Civ 162 used to support unrelated propositions (totally without merit orders and amendment of pleading); the neutral citation actually relates to R (Children: Control of Court Documents). Court flagged this as a mis-citation suggestive of AI use. Outcome: SRA Referral.
Why does Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects misrepresented authority and contract involving Unidentified with SRA Referral in County Court at Dudley, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others?: 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 Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others 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.

Richard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al.D. Massachusetts · Jun 1, 2026misrepresented authority + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026misrepresented authority + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (2)N.D. Mississippi · May 7, 2026misrepresented authority + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et alMontgomery CC, Ohio · Apr 30, 2026misrepresented authority + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietySC New York · Apr 3, 2026misrepresented authority + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Ella and Ramin LLC v. Travelers Insurance CompanyN.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026misrepresented authority + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Grace v Black Horse Limited cited as [2014] EWCA Civ 1091 when that neutral citation actually relates to R (on the application of Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; the correct case was cited elsewhere but this instance was wrongly attributed.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Lloyds TSB Bank plc v Markandan & Uddin [2012] EWCA Civ 65 was deployed in relation to summary judgment with an unclear relevance; the same odd comment 'Your case contained disputed facts about re-entry' appeared, raising suspicion of AI-generated text.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Al Saud v Apex Global Management Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1106 was cited in support of summary judgment despite lack of relevance; court treated this as another incorrect/irrelevant authority placed before it.

Misrepresented: Other | Authorities Document contained AI‑style, out‑of‑context language (e.g. 'Relevance: your client was a litigant in person' and repeated editorial comments), suggesting content produced by an AI assistant and not checked before filing.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others?

Why does Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others?

Which source supports this Mrs Sabrena Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar & Pitstop & Others 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.