AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 29, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSusan Bakshi v James Gibb Management Limited
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Susan Bakshi v James Gibb Management Limited

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law; linked document: naturalandartificiallaw.com. What AI Vortex adds.

Sheriff Appeal Court · Jun 8, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The submissions cited two cases that appeared to be non-existent. The court identified the citations as false material but did not provide their names or citation details in the decision. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in Sheriff Appeal Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The submissions cited two cases that appeared to be non-existent. The court identified the citations as false material but did not provide their names or citation details in the decision. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in Sheriff Appeal Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtSheriff Appeal Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 8, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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

Warning

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The submissions cited two cases that appeared to be non-existent. The court identified the citations as false material but did not provide their names or citation details in the decision.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Susan Bakshi v James Gibb Management Limited?
Fabricated: Case Law | The submissions cited two cases that appeared to be non-existent. The court identified the citations as false material but did not provide their names or citation details in the decision. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Susan Bakshi v James Gibb Management Limited matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in Sheriff Appeal Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Susan Bakshi v James Gibb Management Limited?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Susan Bakshi v James Gibb Management Limited summary?
The recorded source is naturalandartificiallaw.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

Mark Jennings v NatWest Group PLCSheriff Appeal Court · Nov 21, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMoffett v. Ally Capital CorporationD. Arizona · Sep 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceAndDone, LLC v. Shante Gaines; Reset Financial Group, LLCW.D. Missouri · Aug 25, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceAppeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLCASBCA · Jul 13, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourcePolanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.E.D. New York · May 27, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourcePate v. CMG Mortgage, Inc., et al.E.D. Tennessee · Apr 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.