Franklin Paterson Wandji Mboungueng v Severn Trent Water Limited

Court

Employment Tribunal, Birmingham

Jurisdiction

Decided

2025-09-22

AI tool

Implied

Outcome

The application to set aside the dismissal was refused. No sanction or monetary penalty was imposed for the inaccurate authorities, but the Tribunal warned that further serious inaccuracies could result in strike-out for scandalous or unreasonable conduct.

Monetary penalty

None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | The Claimant cited an incorrect EAT reference and asserted that the case held that a technical omission should not override hearing serious discrimination allegations. The Tribunal found that the correct reference was PA/1281/02/MAA and that the case instead concerned the strict application of time limits, subject to exceptional circumstances, not discrimination allegations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The Claimant stated that the case established that health-related non-compliance may justify relief from sanctions. The Tribunal found that although the case existed, it concerned a strike-out for alleged scandalous conduct and was not about non-compliance or relief from sanctions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The Claimant described this as a recent case affirming a Tribunal responsibility to accommodate procedural missteps in complex discrimination matters. The Tribunal found that the decision was a first-instance case on its facts and did not affirm any such general responsibility; no appeal was identified. || Fabricated: Case Law | The Claimant cited this case as authority that strike-out should occur only when necessary and proportionate. The Tribunal found that no such case appeared to exist and that the cited IRLR page was part of Haq & others v Audit Commission, an equal pay case that said nothing about strike-outs. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The Claimant asserted that this case recognized that discrimination claims are often inherently difficult to particularize without disclosure. The Tribunal found that Chapman v Simon mainly concerned the inability to pursue complaints not contained in the claim form and that it did not concern disclosure or support the quoted proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The Claimant asserted that the Court of Appeal had confirmed that Tribunals should adopt a flexible and supportive approach where health conditions affect compliance. The Tribunal found that the case concerned time limits and an extension partly justified by the claimant's ill-health, not compliance with orders or the asserted general principle.

Details

The Claimant relied on several authorities that were either non-existent, incorrectly cited, or materially misrepresented. The Employment Judge strongly suspected that AI had been used but did not determine this conclusively. The Tribunal explained that using AI was not itself improper, but submitting unchecked and misleading authorities was a serious problem. The inaccurate references did not affect the refusal of the application, and the Tribunal made no orders on its own initiative, while warning that further similar conduct could lead to strike-out.

Sanction teardown · Employment Tribunal, Birmingham, UK · 2025-09-22

Franklin Paterson Wandji Mboungueng v Severn Trent Water Limited

What happened

In Employment Tribunal, Birmingham, UK, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Claimant cited an incorrect EAT reference and asserted that the case held that a technical omission should not override hearing serious discrimination allegations. The Tribunal found that the correct reference was PA/1281/02/MAA and that the case instead concerned the strict application of time limits, subject to exceptional circumstances, not discrimination allegations.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Claimant stated that the case established that health-related non-compliance may justify relief from sanctions. The Tribunal found that although the case existed, it concerned a strike-out for alleged scandalous conduct and was not about non-compliance or relief from sanctions.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Claimant described this as a recent case affirming a Tribunal responsibility to accommodate procedural missteps in complex discrimination matters. The Tribunal found that the decision was a first-instance case on its facts and did not affirm any such general responsibility; no appeal was identified.
Fabricated (Case Law)

The Claimant cited this case as authority that strike-out should occur only when necessary and proportionate. The Tribunal found that no such case appeared to exist and that the cited IRLR page was part of Haq & others v Audit Commission, an equal pay case that said nothing about strike-outs.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Claimant asserted that this case recognized that discrimination claims are often inherently difficult to particularize without disclosure. The Tribunal found that Chapman v Simon mainly concerned the inability to pursue complaints not contained in the claim form and that it did not concern disclosure or support the quoted proposition.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Claimant asserted that the Court of Appeal had confirmed that Tribunals should adopt a flexible and supportive approach where health conditions affect compliance. The Tribunal found that the case concerned time limits and an extension partly justified by the claimant's ill-health, not compliance with orders or the asserted general principle.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Additional detail

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3027/Franklin_Paterson_Wandji_Mboungueng_v_Severn_Trent_Vjzkziz.23_Reconsideration_reasons_.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template