Claimant v ABC International Bank Plc
Outcome
Individual claims
Claims struck out as out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his complaints of whistleblowing detriment and automatic dismissal within the required time period, and refused to extend time.
Application to amend to plead philosophical belief in rigorous regulatory compliance and ethical financial practice refused. Tribunal found the belief profoundly unlikely to satisfy Grainger criteria, was 'no more than that people should do what they are supposed to do', and respondent had no knowledge of the belief. Claim significantly out of time.
Automatic unfair dismissal claim related to whistleblowing struck out as out of time; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary limitation period.
Facts
Dr Hassan, a senior employee at ABC International Bank earning over £109k annually, was dismissed on 14 March 2024. He brought claims including whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, and sought to amend to include a philosophical belief discrimination claim based on 'rigorous regulatory compliance and ethical financial practice'. He was unemployed for 13.5 months before finding comparable employment. As a litigant in person, he relied heavily on AI-generated case law, citing 46 inaccurate or misleading cases in his skeleton argument, including 9 entirely fictitious cases. After the preliminary hearing struck out his claims as out of time, he applied for reconsideration based on new evidence of regulatory investigations.
Decision
The tribunal refused the reconsideration application under rule 70(2) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The new evidence did not change the finding that the philosophical belief claim had vanishingly small prospects and was significantly out of time, nor that it was reasonably practicable to bring the whistleblowing claims in time. The tribunal awarded costs of £5,881.80 against the claimant for unreasonable conduct in repeatedly citing fake and misleading AI-generated case law despite being warned, and serving unauthorised amended documents containing further misrepresentations.
Practical note
Litigants in person using AI to generate case law must verify citations from authentic sources before relying on them; reckless deployment of AI-generated fake or misrepresented cases after being warned constitutes unreasonable conduct warranting costs, even for unrepresented parties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005897/2024
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Salary band
- £100,000+
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No