施姍姍 (SZE SAN SAN) v 薈娛國際有限公司 (IBEAUTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED)
Lands Tribunal · Oct 16, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission described section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance as concerning lease validity and exclusivity, but the tribunal found that it concerns the power to exclude premises from the Ordinance's application. Outcome: Application refused. The respondent, represented by Wei Shu-hua without legal representation, submitted a complaint containing numerous incorrect statutory references and descriptions. The tribunal stated that the document appeared to be an artificial-intelligence work, although Wei said it had been drafted by a lawyer friend. The tribunal found that the cited provisions did not support the propositions asserted: section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance concerned exclusion of premises, section 12 had been repealed in 1993, section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance concerned establishment rather than jurisdiction, and that Ordinance had no section 21. It also found that Lands Tribunal Rules 12 and 25 concerned amendment of documents and adjournments respectively, not the matters asserted; and that the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance was Cap. 219, not Cap. 48, with section 3 concerning written land contracts. The tribunal concluded that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and refused leave.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Application refused. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application refused in Lands Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission described section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance as concerning lease validity and exclusivity, but the tribunal found that it concerns the power to exclude premises from the Ordinance's application. Outcome: Application refused. The respondent, represented by Wei Shu-hua without legal representation, submitted a complaint containing numerous incorrect statutory references and descriptions. The tribunal stated that the document appeared to be an artificial-intelligence work, although Wei said it had been drafted by a lawyer friend. The tribunal found that the cited provisions did not support the propositions asserted: section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance concerned exclusion of premises, section 12 had been repealed in 1993, section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance concerned establishment rather than jurisdiction, and that Ordinance had no section 21. It also found that Lands Tribunal Rules 12 and 25 concerned amendment of documents and adjournments respectively, not the matters asserted; and that the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance was Cap. 219, not Cap. 48, with section 3 concerning written land contracts. The tribunal concluded that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and refused leave.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application refused in Lands Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Application refused
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission described section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance as concerning lease validity and exclusivity, but the tribunal found that it concerns the power to exclude premises from the Ordinance's application.
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | The submission relied on section 12 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance as imposing lease-termination obligations, but the tribunal found that section 12 had been repealed in 1993.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission cited section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance as defining the tribunal's jurisdiction, but the tribunal stated that section 3 concerns establishment and that jurisdiction is addressed in section 8.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | The submission cited section 21 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance as conferring adjudicative powers, but the tribunal stated that the Ordinance does not contain 21 sections.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission described section 12 of the Lands Tribunal Rules as setting requirements for claim contents, but the tribunal found that it concerns amendment of documents before a hearing.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission described section 25 of the Lands Tribunal Rules as setting evidentiary filing requirements, but the tribunal found that it concerns adjournment of hearings.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission identified the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance as Cap. 48 and attributed claim-content requirements to section 3. The tribunal stated that the Ordinance is Cap. 219 and that section 3 concerns the requirement that land contracts be in writing; Cap. 48 is the Agents Ordinance.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in 施姍姍 (SZE SAN SAN) v 薈娛國際有限公司 (IBEAUTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED)?
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission described section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance as concerning lease validity and exclusivity, but the tribunal found that it concerns the power to exclude premises from the Ordinance's application. Outcome: Application refused. The respondent, represented by Wei Shu-hua without legal representation, submitted a complaint containing numerous incorrect statutory references and descriptions. The tribunal stated that the document appeared to be an artificial-intelligence work, although Wei said it had been drafted by a lawyer friend. The tribunal found that the cited provisions did not support the propositions asserted: section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance concerned exclusion of premises, section 12 had been repealed in 1993, section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance concerned establishment rather than jurisdiction, and that Ordinance had no section 21. It also found that Lands Tribunal Rules 12 and 25 concerned amendment of documents and adjournments respectively, not the matters asserted; and that the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance was Cap. 219, not Cap. 48, with section 3 concerning written land contracts. The tribunal concluded that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and refused leave.
- Why does 施姍姍 (SZE SAN SAN) v 薈娛國際有限公司 (IBEAUTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application refused in Lands Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about 施姍姍 (SZE SAN SAN) v 薈娛國際有限公司 (IBEAUTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED)?
- 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 施姍姍 (SZE SAN SAN) v 薈娛國際有限公司 (IBEAUTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED) 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.