PS v London Borough of Wandsworth
Upper Tribunal · Jul 14, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Upper Tribunal
- Record ID
- ps-v-london-borough-of-wandsworth-2025-07-14
- Observed outcome
- Permission to appeal was refused; application to suspend the lower tribunal's decision was also refused.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Inaccurate_regulatory_citation
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal following a First-tier Tribunal decision.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The judge noted the references were likely the product of AI generation.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.