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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth Borough Council
Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) · Nov 24, 2025
GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotesadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited [18] of Barker v Shokar as holding a microwave satisfied the statutory definition; the Tribunal found the passage did not say that and that the misleading citation was produced by AI.
- Why the court cared
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited [18] of Barker v Shokar as holding a microwave satisfied the statutory definition; the Tribunal found the passage did not say that and that the misleading citation was produced by AI.
- Why it matters now
- UK tribunals now call out AI-generated misquotations by name — treat false quotes as seriously as fake cases.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited [18] of Barker v Shokar as holding a microwave satisfied the statutory definition; the Tribunal found the passage did not say that and that the misleading citation was produced by AI.
Operational lesson
UK tribunals now call out AI-generated misquotations by name — treat false quotes as seriously as fake cases.
Record details
CourtUpper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 24, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited [18] of Barker v Shokar as holding a microwave satisfied the statutory definition; the Tribunal found the passage did not say that and that the misleading citation was produced by AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth Borough Council?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited [18] of Barker v Shokar as holding a microwave satisfied the statutory definition; the Tribunal found the passage did not say that and that the misleading citation was produced by AI.
- Why does Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth Borough Council matter for legal AI risk?
- UK tribunals now call out AI-generated misquotations by name — treat false quotes as seriously as fake cases.
- What does the public record establish about Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth Borough Council?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth Borough Council 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.