UB v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · Jun 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
- Record ID
- ub-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025-06-18
- Observed outcome
- The appeal was dismissed on its merits, and no formal disciplinary sanction was imposed on the legal representatives following their explanation and remedial actions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The tribunal found that the appellant's draft Grounds of Appeal contained fabricated and misrepresented case law due to the use of an AI tool. The solicitor admitted the error was inadvertent, caused by filing an uncorrected draft. The tribunal accepted the firm's remedial actions and took no further disciplinary action.
The judge reasoned that while the submission of fabricated and misrepresented authorities was unacceptable and wasted tribunal time, the solicitor's explanation of an inadvertent filing error was credible. The judge further noted the firm's proactive remedial measures, including the implementation of an AI policy and staff training, as sufficient to address the concerns without further sanction.
UT flags both non-existent cases and real cases cited for wrong propositions — verify the holding, not just the cite.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Inadequate_human_oversight
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Immigration
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) from the First-tier Tribunal, dismissed on 18 June 2025.
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 solicitor admitted the grounds were drafted with assistance from an AI tool.
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
- Implement mandatory human verification for all case law citations generated or assisted by AI.
- Establish a formal firm-wide policy governing the use of AI tools in legal drafting.
- Conduct rigorous document control procedures to ensure only final, reviewed versions of pleadings are filed with the court.
- Provide specialized training for staff on the risks of AI-generated hallucinations and the necessity of independent legal research.