Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Various Leaseholders v Assethold Limited
Property Chamber · Jul 7, 2025
GBEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Various Leaseholders v. Assethold Limited, the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber refused permission to appeal in a service-charge dispute involving Napier House. The respondent’s grounds of appeal relied on a number of authorities that the tribunal could not locate, cited with incorrect references, or summarized inaccurately. The tribunal said it appeared that an AI tool had been used and that checking the references had disproportionately consumed tribunal resources. It gave specific examples: Petzl v. Avison and Fairman v. UKCC could not be found after searches of BAILII, Westlaw, and Find Case Law;…
- Why the court cared
- Permission to appeal required a realistic prospect of success. The tribunal rejected the grounds on their merits and recorded the defective authorities as a separate explanation for why the submission burdened the process.
- Why it matters now
- The decision documents a tribunal’s source-by-source verification process and the procedural cost of AI-assisted appellate grounds that have not been checked by the filer.
Why this matter is tracked
In Various Leaseholders v. Assethold Limited, the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber refused permission to appeal in a service-charge dispute involving Napier House. The respondent’s grounds of appeal relied on a number of authorities that the tribunal could not locate, cited with incorrect references, or summarized inaccurately. The tribunal said it appeared that an AI tool had been used and that checking the references had disproportionately consumed tribunal resources. It gave specific examples: Petzl v. Avison and Fairman v. UKCC could not be found after searches of BAILII, Westlaw, and Find Case Law; other citations referred to unrelated decisions or did not support the asserted proposition. The tribunal found no ground with a realistic prospect of success and noted that several of the disputed authorities had not even been relied on at the hearing.
Operational lesson
When a filing contains eleven-plus flagged citations, tribunals infer systemic AI use; require line-by-line verification logs before submission.
Record details
CourtProperty Chamber
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 7, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
11 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Petzl v Avison [2014] UKUT 0065 (LC)'; tribunal could not find this case and noted it may be inauthentic.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Fairman v UKCC [2014] UKUT 479 (LC)'; tribunal could not find this case and considered it may be inauthentic.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Ellis v APL Co Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1088'; tribunal was unable to find this authority and suggested it may be AI-generated.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Anchor Trust v Wandsworth LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 1051' but tribunal found the citation related to Mohanaei v Mohanaei and the summary given by Respondent was inaccurate.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd v Secretary of State [2009] EWCA Civ 1044' but tribunal found that the reference corresponds to Pablo Star Ltd v Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Co PJSC [2009] EWCA Civ 1044 and is not authority for the asserted proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 [2] [68]-[72]'; tribunal noted the full judgment concerns parole hearings and that the passages cited did not appear relevant to the Respondent's argument.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Sheffield City Council v Oliver [2017] UKUT 349 (LC)'; tribunal suggested the Respondent may have intended Oliver v Sheffield City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 225 and that the UKUT citation/summary was inaccurate.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Waaler v London Borough of Hounslow [2017] EWCA Civ 45' but tribunal stated the Respondent's summary of the case was inaccurate (misstated the legal test).
Show 3 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Garside v RFYC Ltd [2011] UKUT 367'; tribunal noted mixed judicial consideration and did not accept the Respondent's claimed authoritative proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Lambeth LBC v O’Kane [2013] UKUT 0538 (LC)'; tribunal could not locate this citation and flagged potential inauthenticity.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Forcelux Ltd v Sweetman [2001] EWCA Civ 1217' but tribunal found that the citation corresponds to Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain (Costs) and that the Respondent's summary did not match the true authority.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Various Leaseholders v Assethold Limited?
- In Various Leaseholders v. Assethold Limited, the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber refused permission to appeal in a service-charge dispute involving Napier House. The respondent’s grounds of appeal relied on a number of authorities that the tribunal could not locate, cited with incorrect references, or summarized inaccurately. The tribunal said it appeared that an AI tool had been used and that checking the references had disproportionately consumed tribunal resources. It gave specific examples: Petzl v. Avison and Fairman v. UKCC could not be found after searches of BAILII, Westlaw, and Find Case Law;…
- Why does Various Leaseholders v Assethold Limited matter for legal AI risk?
- The decision documents a tribunal’s source-by-source verification process and the procedural cost of AI-assisted appellate grounds that have not been checked by the filer.
- What does the public record establish about Various Leaseholders v Assethold Limited?
- English-language tribunal decision. The tribunal said AI use appeared likely; it did not identify a tool, make a disciplinary finding, or impose a separate AI sanction in this decision.
- Which source supports this Various Leaseholders v Assethold 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.