AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesVictoria Place Flats RTM Company Ltd & ors v Assethold Limited
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Victoria Place Flats RTM Company Ltd & ors v Assethold Limited

First-tier Tribunal · Oct 23, 2025

GBEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal identified that the respondent's representative used Microsoft M365 Copilot to generate legal research, which resulted in the submission of fabricated Court of Appeal citations and invalid case references. The judge determined these submissions were unreliable, rejected the arguments, and admonished the representative for failing to verify AI-generated content before presenting it to the court.

Why the court cared
The judge reasoned that the representative's reliance on 'Qdime' was misplaced because the case involved a tripartite management company rather than an RTM company. The judge verified the AI's tendency to hallucinate by replicating the representative's search queries, confirming the AI produced non-existent EWCA citations and incorrect references, leading to the conclusion that the representative had not read the underlying authorities.
Why it matters now
Microsoft Copilot hallucinates EWCA citations — enterprise AI is not a verification substitute.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | M365 Copilot returned fabricated Court of Appeal citations for Qdime (non-existent EWCA citations) which Mr Gurvits' submissions echoed; tribunal could not locate those citations on bailii and found them to be AI hallucinations. The judge tested Microsoft M365 Copilot and found it produced fabricated Court of Appeal citations for Qdime and an incorrect citation for Gala Unity. The Tribunal concluded Mr Gurvits used AI-generated research without adequate verification; the AI outputs were rejected as unreliable. The Tribunal criticised the conduct but did not impose professional disciplinary sanctions; remedial orders in the case related to service charge and fee reimbursement.

Operational lesson

Microsoft Copilot hallucinates EWCA citations — enterprise AI is not a verification substitute.

Record details

CourtFirst-tier Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateOct 23, 2025
MI
AI toolMicrosoft M365 Copilot
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe Tribunal determined that the disputed service and administration charges were not payable by the applicants, ordered the respondent to pay £337 in tribunal fee reimbursements, and issued section 20C and paragraph 5A orders preventing the respondent from passing legal costs to the lessees.
Known amount£337
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Judge tested Microsoft M365 Copilot.

Procedural posture

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determination of liability for service and administration charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | M365 Copilot returned fabricated Court of Appeal citations for Qdime (non-existent EWCA citations) which Mr Gurvits' submissions echoed; tribunal could not locate those citations on bailii and found them to be AI hallucinations.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent provided an incorrect citation for Gala Unity; tribunal identified the citation as invalid and treated it as an AI-originated error.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Victoria Place Flats RTM Company Ltd & ors v Assethold Limited?
The Tribunal identified that the respondent's representative used Microsoft M365 Copilot to generate legal research, which resulted in the submission of fabricated Court of Appeal citations and invalid case references. The judge determined these submissions were unreliable, rejected the arguments, and admonished the representative for failing to verify AI-generated content before presenting it to the court.
Why does Victoria Place Flats RTM Company Ltd & ors v Assethold Limited matter for legal AI risk?
Microsoft Copilot hallucinates EWCA citations — enterprise AI is not a verification substitute.
What does the public record establish about Victoria Place Flats RTM Company Ltd & ors v Assethold 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 Victoria Place Flats RTM Company Ltd & ors 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.

David Jeffs v London Borough of LewishamFirst-tier Tribunal · Mar 16, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityFolarin v. The Immigration Services CommissionnerFirst-tier Tribunal · Jan 29, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityChi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B LimitedFirst-tier Tribunal · Oct 17, 2025same court · fake citations + contractHolloway v BecklesFirst-tier Tribunal · Aug 12, 2025same court · fake citations + contractAndDone, LLC v. Shante Gaines; Reset Financial Group, LLCW.D. Missouri · Aug 25, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home CentersM.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)