HomeCasesPSAHSC v. Tchampet

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

PSAHSC v. Tchampet

High Court · Jan 30, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Written submissions relied on Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29 as authority for a proposition it did not support; court found the AI had produced an unsupported citation/authority. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Written submissions relied on Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29 as authority for a proposition it did not support; court found the AI had produced an unsupported citation/authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions contained a purported quotation attributed to Fatnani v GMC [2007] EWCA Civ 46 that did not appear in that authority; court found it to be a phantom created by AI. || False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions included a purported quotation from para 21 of Gupta v GMC [2001] UKPC 61 which did not exist; court identified it as AI-generated.
Why it matters now: Microsoft Co-Pilot is not a legal research tool; ban consumer chatbots for drafting submissions and quote-pull every authority.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Microsoft Co-Pilot is not a legal research tool; ban consumer chatbots for drafting submissions and quote-pull every authority.

Record details

CourtHigh Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJan 30, 2026

AI toolMicrosoft Co-Pilot

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

Microsoft Co-Pilot is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Written submissions relied on Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29 as authority for a proposition it did not support; court found the AI had produced an unsupported citation/authority.
False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions contained a purported quotation attributed to Fatnani v GMC [2007] EWCA Civ 46 that did not appear in that authority; court found it to be a phantom created by AI.
False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions included a purported quotation from para 21 of Gupta v GMC [2001] UKPC 61 which did not exist; court identified it as AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in PSAHSC v. Tchampet?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Written submissions relied on Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29 as authority for a proposition it did not support; court found the AI had produced an unsupported citation/authority. Outcome: Warning.
Why does PSAHSC v. Tchampet matter for legal AI risk?: Microsoft Co-Pilot is not a legal research tool; ban consumer chatbots for drafting submissions and quote-pull every authority.
What does the public record establish about PSAHSC v. Tchampet?: 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 PSAHSC v. Tchampet 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.

Malone & Anor v Laois County Council & OrsHigh Court · Jun 23, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNBHigh Court · Jun 6, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Plonit v. Sharia Court of AppealsHigh Court · Feb 23, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Goh Chin Cheng v Choco Up SG Pte LtdHigh Court · May 4, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Northbound Processing v. South African Diamond RegulatorHigh Court · Jun 30, 2025same court · misrepresented authority + administrative Ayinde v. Borough of HaringeyHigh Court · Apr 3, 2025same court · misrepresented authority + administrative

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Microsoft Co-Pilot is not a legal research tool; ban consumer chatbots for drafting submissions and quote-pull every authority.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions contained a purported quotation attributed to Fatnani v GMC [2007] EWCA Civ 46 that did not appear in that authority; court found it to be a phantom created by AI.

False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions included a purported quotation from para 21 of Gupta v GMC [2001] UKPC 61 which did not exist; court identified it as AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in PSAHSC v. Tchampet?

Why does PSAHSC v. Tchampet matter for legal AI risk?

Microsoft Co-Pilot is not a legal research tool; ban consumer chatbots for drafting submissions and quote-pull every authority.

What does the public record establish about PSAHSC v. Tchampet?

Which source supports this PSAHSC v. Tchampet 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.