Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth Borough Council
Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) · Nov 24, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Tribunal determined that the appellant's reliance on Barker v Shokar [2014] UKUT 17 (LC) was based on an AI-generated hallucination. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the cited passage did not exist in the original judgment and cautioned against the use of AI for legal research without verification.
- 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
In an appeal before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the appellant, Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd, challenged a local authority's declaration that its property was a house in multiple occupation (HMO). The appellant argued that the presence of microwave ovens in rooms constituted 'cooking facilities' under s.254(8) of the Housing Act 2004, thereby exempting the building from HMO status. To support this, the appellant cited Barker v Shokar [2014] UKUT 17 (LC), claiming it established that microwaves satisfy the statutory definition. The Tribunal found this citation was a hallucination produced by AI, noting the passage did not exist in the cited case. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's interpretation, concluding that a microwave does not constitute cooking facilities, and dismissed the appeal.
UK tribunals now call out AI-generated misquotations by name — treat false quotes as seriously as fake cases.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The judge identified the misleading citation as a product of AI.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) confirming an HMO declaration.
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?
- The Tribunal determined that the appellant's reliance on Barker v Shokar [2014] UKUT 17 (LC) was based on an AI-generated hallucination. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the cited passage did not exist in the original judgment and cautioned against the use of AI for legal research without verification.
- 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.