Incident Tracker / United Kingdom
Tuyunuklu v Akmal, [2026] UKUT 174 (LC)
·Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)·UKDismissal
Before 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 appeal and, noting references to AI in the hearing transcript, said she suspected he had been misled by an AI hallucination.
- Court
- Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
- Date
- 2026-05-05
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- An unrepresented appellant relied on Rakusen v Jepson [2023] UKSC 9 for a proposition the Supreme Court never decided. From references to AI in the hearing transcript the judge inferred the appellant may have been misled by an AI hallucination; AI use was suspected but not confirmed.
- 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
- Rakusen v Jepson [2023] UKSC 9 — relied on for the proposition that a tenant whose rent was paid by universal credit could still obtain a rent repayment order; the Supreme Court did not say that
What the court said
“The Supreme Court did not say that. From references to AI in the transcript I wonder if the appellant was misled by an AI hallucination.”
“Whatever the reason, his point about Rakusen v Jepsen is without foundation.”
“Instead of explaining clearly, he focused on trying to persuade the FTT that Rakusen v Jepsen was authority for something that it did not decide, and then on accusing the FTT of bias.”
“The appeal fails and the FTT’s decision stands.”
Timeline
- FTT refused the appellant's earlier rent-repayment application.
- Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal the earlier application.
- FTT heard and dismissed the later rent-repayment application.
- Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal on written representations.
Why this case matters
Tuyunuklu is a narrow AI-suspected record. Unlike Rafique v HMRC and Green v Imprint Creative, the problem was not a list of non-existent cases. It was a real Supreme Court authority used for a proposition the Supreme Court had not decided. Judge Cooke made the AI finding cautiously, based only on references in the transcript. That makes the case useful for separating confirmed fabrication from a common adjacent risk: a generated summary can misstate a real case as badly as it can invent one.
Practice note
When AI points to a real case, the user should still read the judgment and identify the exact paragraph that supports the proposition. A citation to Rakusen was not enough; the point had to be checked against the Supreme Court's actual issue and holding. If no paragraph supports the point, the submission should say so or abandon it.
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
- Rafique v Commissioners for HMRC, [2026] UKFTT 673 (TC)2026-05-06 · First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) · DismissalBefore 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 reinstat…
- 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, “Tuyunuklu v Akmal, [2026] UKUT 174 (LC)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/tuyunuklu-v-akmal (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.