Man who claimed £35k over ‘phobia’ of Pride materials in bank has ChatGPT-made case with fake precedents dismissed

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SAC (Civ) 41
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal N A Ross

Mark Jennings, who averred that he suffered from Autism Spectrum Disorder, BPD, and PTSD, claimed that Natwest’s refusal to remove the material from its branch constituted a violation of obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The action was raised in Scotland on the basis that the respondent was domiciled in Edinburgh, although the bank branch used by the appellant was in fact operated by a different company.

The appeal was heard by Sheriff Principal Nigel Ross in the Sheriff Appeal Court. It was noted that the appellant made written representations using the AI database ChatGPT.

Limited links to facts

On 16 August 2025, the appellant was using his local Natwest branch in Herne Bay, Kent. While he was there, he viewed some material which promoted Pride, which he viewed as being contrary to his religious beliefs. The pursuer described himself as having a “phobia” of Pride-related paraphernalia, which exacerbated his diagnosed mental health conditions.

The appellant made a request, by means not stated to the court, that the respondent make reasonable adjustments for his condition, namely by refraining from promoting the Pride movement within the branch premises. He informed them of the adverse effect this material had on his mental health, however the respondent refused to remove the material. The appellant further averred that he had been unable to visit those premises since without suffering severe psychological distress, causing increased social isolation and poor mental health.

Following debate, the sheriff at Edinburgh Sheriff Court dismissed the action as raising no relevant or sufficiently specific claim in law. More than 2 months after raising appeal proceedings, the appellant sought to substantially modify his appeal to include more detailed descriptions of how he was affected by visual stimuli. The respondent maintained that the amendment did not address basic flaws in the appellant’s case, particularly about the case having been raised against the wrong party.

The appellant’s submissions were noted to largely comprise free-form legal propositions with only limited links to the facts. At least three of the cases cited appeared to the court to be non-existent. The respondent submitted that the sheriff had correctly identified a lack of specification, and the pleadings made no link between the operator of the bank branch and the respondent.

No fair notice

In his decision, Sheriff Principal Ross began by summarising the appellant’s submissions: “The sheriff found that the [original] pleadings did not provide a basis for a claim. In that he was correct, as the appellant appeared to recognise by moving to amend. The claim now refers to sections 111 and 112 of the 2010 Act. These impose liability on a person instructing, causing, inducing or aiding, a contravention of the 2010 Act. The new case is, however, unspecific as to what form these directions took, when they were imposed, and what the content was.”

He continued: “More fundamentally the complaint, as now focused, relates to the layout of the Pride material in the Herne Bay branch, which is said to be unavoidable on the mandatory public queue route. The complaint is specific to the branch layout. The breach of duty is, however, said to relate to an overall, nationwide policy. It is not explained whether, and how, the specific layout was controlled by the respondent. There is no fair notice of how these two elements are to be reconciled.”

Considering the connection between the respondent and the company operating the branch, the Sheriff Principal said: “As the case now hinges on the layout of the branch, it is critical that the appellant identifies what act, by this respondent, caused that layout, and lack of reasonable adjustment. He has failed to do so. It is not obvious how a head office in Edinburgh would know of, or control, the layout of a branch in Kent, including traffic routes and signs. Section 112, if it is to be relied upon, requires knowledge. The appellant does not explain how the respondent knew of this issue and aided any breach of the Act.”

He concluded: “The minute, even if allowed, does not present a coherent and legally relevant case which could be sent for a hearing on evidence. It does not give fair notice of critical parts of the case, to allow the respondent to prepare and present any defence. It is inexcusably late, both in time and in relation to the stage of proceedings at which it is introduced, with lateness not being either vouched or adequately explained by disability or any other cause.”

Sheriff Principal Ross therefore refused the motion to amend the pleadings, and thereafter dismissed the appeal for lack of a relevant case.