Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United Kingdom

Rafique v Commissioners for HMRC, [2026] UKFTT 673 (TC)

·First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)·UKDismissal

Before the First-tier Tax Tribunal, self-represented appellant Omar Rafique sent emails citing multiple non-existent authorities that Judge Bailey found were AI-generated and unreviewed. The tribunal refused to reinstate his struck-out appeal and declined to issue a contempt summons, warning him against relying on AI-hallucinated cases in any future proceedings.

Court
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
Date
2026-05-06
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
A self-represented appellant sent emails citing several authorities (including purported Perrin, Hanuman Commercial, Vardy Properties and Moulsdale Properties decisions) that did not exist. Judge Bailey found the text was AI-generated and had not been reviewed by the appellant, describing the cases as AI hallucinations.
Outcome
Dismissal
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
Not separately recorded

What was fabricated or misused

  • Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 221 (TC) — cited for third-party reasonable excuse; the Tribunal found the AI-generated email's cases did not support the propositions
  • HMRC v Hok Limited [2012] UKUT 363 (TCC) — cited for agent-misled penalties; the Tribunal found the AI-generated email's cases did not support the propositions
  • Moulsdale t/a Moulsdale Properties v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 271 (TC) — cited for SDLT cancellation and no tax loss; the Tribunal found it was an AI hallucination or did not support the proposition
  • Vibroplant v HMRC [2009] UKFTT 246 (TC) — cited for proportionate penalties and no revenue loss; the Tribunal found the email's cases were AI hallucinations
  • Hanuman Commercial Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0565 (TC) — citation incorrect and did not support the SDLT proposition
  • Vardy Properties and another v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 564 (TC) — citation correct but did not support the SDLT proposition
  • Peter Jackson (Jewellers) Ltd v HMRC [2009] UKFTT 246 (TC) — citation correct but did not support the no-tax-loss proposition
  • Four authorities cited in the 4 September 2025 email — one did not appear to exist; the other three did not support the proposition contended
  • R (Hysaj) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, Tameside MBC v Secretary of State [1977] AC 1014 and A v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 749 (TC) — cited in the final response; the Tribunal found the further cases were AI hallucinations or did not support the proposition

What the court said

“I find that the cases cited in this email are AI hallucinations – most of the citations are incorrect, and none of these cases support the propositions relied upon by the Appellant.”
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), [18]
“There is no bar on any person using AI to help them to write their submissions but all parties – whether legally trained or not – are under an obligation to ensure that what they submit to the FTT (or any other tribunal or court) is factually correct and true.”
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), [99]
“If the Appellant chooses to seek permission to appeal, he is now aware that no party is permitted to rely upon fabricated authorities, and that it is his responsibility to check that any case he relies upon is both genuine and does support the propositions he says it supports.”
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), [103]

Timeline

  1. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with only the first page of two HMRC letters.
  2. HMRC forwarded the 6 February email; the Tribunal found it AI-generated.
  3. Appellant sent emails citing Hanuman, Vardy, Moulsdale and Peter Jackson.
  4. FTT issued confirmation that the appeal had been automatically struck out.
  5. Tribunal refused reinstatement and warned against using fabricated authorities.

Why this case matters

Rafique extends the UK tax-tribunal record beyond a single bad filing. Green v Imprint Creative involved one employment-tribunal email from a self-represented claimant; Rafique involved a VAT appeal in which the appellant sent repeated long emails with placeholder text, incorrect citations and unsupported authorities. Judge Bailey refused reinstatement on ordinary procedural grounds, then dealt separately with fabricated case law. The contempt summons was not issued because knowledge was not proved, but the decision gave express notice for any next step in the same proceedings.

Practice note

Before sending an FTT email, application or skeleton, a party should check each cited case in The National Archives, BAILII, an official tribunal database or a recognised legal publisher. The check must cover both existence and the proposition asserted. Placeholder text, bracketed prompts and authorities that cannot be matched to a source should be removed before filing.

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

  • Tuyunuklu v Akmal, [2026] UKUT 174 (LC)2026-05-05 · Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) · DismissalBefore the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), unrepresented appellant Hakan Tuyunuklu relied on Rakusen v Jepson for a proposition the Supreme Court never decided. Judge Elizabeth Cooke dismissed his rent-repayment-order a…
  • Folarin v Immigration Services Commissioner, [2026] UKFTT 135 (GRC)2026-01-29 · First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) · DismissalBefore the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), immigration adviser Raphael Folarin, appealing the loss of his registration, cited multiple non-existent authorities obtained by asking ChatGPT for supporting…
  • The Father v The Mother & Ors, [2025] EWHC 2135 (Fam)2025-07-30 · High Court of England and Wales (Family Division) · DismissalIn the High Court (Family Division), a self-represented father seeking a judge's recusal submitted authorities that HHJ Bailey found were not genuine and appeared generated by AI. The case was referred to Mrs Justice Li…
  • HMRC v Gunnarsson, [2025] UKUT 247 (TCC)2025-07-23 · Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) · DismissalBefore the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), unrepresented respondent Marc Gunnarsson cited three non-existent First-tier Tribunal decisions produced by online AI software. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Rafique v Commissioners for HMRC, [2026] UKFTT 673 (TC)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/rafique-v-hmrc (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →