Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1WBI5PSGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Ms F Green v Imprint Creative Print Solutions Limited

Employment Tribunal (Leeds) · Jan 12, 2026

Jurisdiction
international
Court
Employment Tribunal (Leeds)
Record ID
ms-f-green-v-imprint-creative-print-solutions-limited-2026-01-12
Observed outcome
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and detriment claims but upheld the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claimant's AI-generated authorities were disregarded.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Tribunal disregarded legal authorities submitted by the pro se claimant after she admitted they were AI-generated and the Tribunal confirmed they were non-existent. The Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the underlying employment claims, dismissing the unfair dismissal and detriment claims while upholding the reasonable adjustments claim.

Why the decision-maker cared

Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant submitted case law authorities in an email that could not be identified; claimant admitted they were AI-generated and the Tribunal found the authorities do not exist and should be disregarded.

Why it matters now

Employment tribunals now disregard AI-sourced authorities wholesale—challenge the entire argument, not just the cites.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Employment
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Admitted
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Reserved judgment following a four-day hearing at the Leeds Employment Tribunal, with a separate remedy hearing to be scheduled.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The claimant admitted using AI, but the specific tool was not named.

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
  2. Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.