Various Leaseholders v Assethold Limited

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 7 de julio de 2025, Property Chamber (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Respondent cited 'Petzl v Avison [2014] UKUT 0065 (LC)'; tribunal could not find this case and noted it may be inauthentic.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Respondent cited 'Fairman v UKCC [2014] UKUT 479 (LC)'; tribunal could not find this case and considered it may be inauthentic.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. 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.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 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.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 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.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 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.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 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.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 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).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Respondent cited 'Garside v RFYC Ltd [2011] UKUT 367'; tribunal noted mixed judicial consideration and did not accept the Respondent's claimed authoritative proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Respondent cited 'Lambeth LBC v O’Kane [2013] UKUT 0538 (LC)'; tribunal could not locate this citation and flagged potential inauthenticity.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 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.

Desenlace

Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1104/Napier_House_LU1_1DU_Appeal_UK_7_July_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.