Incident Tracker / United Kingdom
Green v Imprint Creative Print Solutions Ltd, 1809293/2024
·Employment Tribunal (Leeds)·UKOther
Before the Leeds Employment Tribunal, self-represented claimant Ms F Green emailed submissions citing case law that neither the tribunal nor the respondent's counsel could identify. She accepted she had used AI to generate them; the tribunal found the authorities did not exist and disregarded them. It dismissed her protected-disclosure and unfair-dismissal complaints but upheld her reasonable-adjustments claim.
- Court
- Employment Tribunal (Leeds)
- Date
- 2026-03-09
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- A self-represented claimant, responding by email to a time-limit point, cited case law that neither the tribunal nor the respondent's counsel could identify. She readily accepted she had used AI to generate the submissions; the tribunal found the authorities did not exist.
- Outcome
- Other
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-11
What was fabricated or misused
- Case law in the claimant's 2 December 2025 email opposing the time-limit issue — tribunal and counsel could not identify it; tribunal did not list names
What the court said
“The case law she referred to therein could not be identified by the Tribunal or counsel for the respondent.”
“The claimant readily accepted that she had used AI to generate the submissions.”
“I am satisfied that the authorities referred to do not exist and should be disregarded by this Tribunal.”
“It therefore follows that the claims for protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal fail and are dismissed.”
Timeline
- Respondent held the disciplinary or performance meeting while the claimant was off sick.
- Claimant presented the employment tribunal claim.
- Respondent raised a time-limit issue and claimant replied with AI-generated authorities.
- Liability hearing began at Leeds Employment Tribunal.
- Reserved judgment dismissed whistleblowing and unfair-dismissal complaints but upheld reasonable adjustments.
- Remedy judgment ordered the respondent to pay compensation and interest.
Why this case matters
Green sits between fake-authority cases and ordinary litigant-in-person pleading. The tribunal took a narrow course: it disregarded unsupported AI case law on limitation, then decided limitation and liability from evidence and binding authorities. Compared with Harber v HMRC, the AI use came in an email during a live hearing rather than a prepared tax appeal. Compared with Ferko v Beyond Reach, the tribunal did not reduce evidential weight because of AI; it isolated the false legal research and moved on.
Practice note
A litigant in person responding to a time-limit point should check case names on BAILII, The National Archives, GOV.UK tribunal decisions or a recognised law-report source before emailing authorities. If a case cannot be found, leave it out and explain the factual basis for any extension of time instead.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania, [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin)2026-07-08 · High Court of England and Wales (King's Bench Division, Administrative Court) · OtherIn the High Court (Administrative Court), the Crown Prosecution Service filed extradition submissions citing two non-existent authorities, Vlad v Romania and Jeziorski v Poland, that the CPS later accepted likely origin…
- Huish v Commissioners for HMRC, [2026] UKFTT 129 (TC)2026-01-16 · First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) · OtherBefore the First-tier Tax Tribunal, self-represented appellant Robert Huish cited four non-existent authorities he had generated using AI while preparing his hearing materials. The tribunal attached no blame to him give…
- Elden v Commissioners for HMRC, [2026] UKFTT 41 (TC)2026-01-08 · First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) · OtherBefore the First-tier Tax Tribunal, Gary Elden's representatives, chartered accountants regulated by the ICAEW, filed a skeleton argument that used AI and misstated three real authorities. The tribunal refused HMRC's st…
- SRA v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (SDT)2026-08-25 · Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal · Strike-off / disbarmentIn the United Kingdom, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Registered Foreign Lawyer Abhishek Kumar off the register after he used generative AI to file false citations and misleading quotations in his defence t…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Green v Imprint Creative Print Solutions Ltd, 1809293/2024”, safelegalai.com/tracker/green-v-imprint-creative (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.