PS v London Borough of Wandsworth
Upper Tribunal · Jul 14, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal, concluding that the appellants' reliance on non-existent or misattributed case law and inaccurate regulatory citations—likely generated by AI—did not support their grounds for appeal. The Tribunal found no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's original decision to name a type of school in the child's EHC Plan.
- Why the court cared
- The Judge reasoned that the appellants' arguments were fundamentally undermined by the reliance on non-existent or misattributed legal authorities. The Tribunal determined that the First-tier Tribunal had acted within its statutory jurisdiction and that the subsequent actions of the local authority did not render the original decision unlawful at the time it was made.
- Why it matters now
- Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal before the Upper Tribunal, the appellants challenged a First-tier Tribunal decision regarding their child's special educational needs placement. The appellants relied on several legal authorities, including 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)' and 'R (C) v London Borough of Sutton [2010] UKUT 184 (AAC)', as well as specific interpretations of the SEND Code of Practice. The Upper Tribunal Judge found that the cited cases did not exist or were misattributed, and the Code of Practice citation was inaccurate. The Judge noted these errors were likely the product of AI-generated hallucinations. The Tribunal ultimately refused permission to appeal, finding no arguable error of law in the lower tribunal's decision.
Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The judge noted the references were likely the product of AI generation.
Application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal following a First-tier Tribunal decision.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (C) v London Borough of Sutton [2010] UKUT 184 (AAC)'; Tribunal noted the neutral citation is valid but the title/subject the appellants gave is incorrect (case relates to child support), so the reference was misattributed.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on paragraph 9.169 of the SEND Code of Practice 2015 as supporting a requirement for parental consent to 'off-rolling'; Tribunal found that paragraph does not say that and the citation was inaccurate.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant attributed a passage to B and M v Cheshire East Council [2018] UKUT 232 (AAC) (citing [25]) that the Tribunal found the case does not contain; the case exists but the quoted passage is not present.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in PS v London Borough of Wandsworth?
- The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal, concluding that the appellants' reliance on non-existent or misattributed case law and inaccurate regulatory citations—likely generated by AI—did not support their grounds for appeal. The Tribunal found no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's original decision to name a type of school in the child's EHC Plan.
- Why does PS v London Borough of Wandsworth matter for legal AI risk?
- Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.
- What does the public record establish about PS v London Borough of Wandsworth?
- 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 PS v London Borough of Wandsworth 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.