Sheriff rejects AI-derived submissions in rent arrears claim by party litigant and issues warning

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC KDY 34
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  John A MacRitchie SSC

Your Home Partners, the former landlord of respondents Michael Kellichan and Michelle Hood, sought £5,000 in rent arrears on the basis that, as the tenancy was no longer ongoing, the claim did not fall within the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland as per section 71 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

The case was heard by Sheriff John MacRitchie. All of the parties involved represented themselves.

Wrong interpretation

Following an initial rejection of the claim form, the claimant emailed the sheriff clerk to express their “clear understanding” that, where a tenancy had ended and the claimant sought only to recover a sum of money, the correct route was through simple procedure rather than the FtT. The sheriff instructed the sheriff clerk to again reject the claim and to explain to the claimant that, whether the lease had ended or not, the claim for rent arrears nonetheless arose from a private residential tenancy per section 71 of the Act and, rent arrears being a civil matter, fell within the jurisdiction of the FtT.

In detailed further submissions, the claimant contended that the sheriff’s interpretation of section 71 was wrong. Once the tenancy had ended, there was no longer a PRT within the meaning of section 1 of the Act. The claimant quoted two decision reference numbers from the FtT, CV/19/3145 and CV/20/0624, where it was claimed that the FtT had expressly declined jurisdiction once the tenancy had ended. However, neither decision could be located by the sheriff clerk. While at least the first decision can be located on the First-tier Tribunal’s website, it related to an eviction application rejected for lack of further information and provided no support for the claimant’s propositions.

The claimant also lodged what they proffered as extracts from the “Small Claims (Scotland) Rules – Section 41a” and the “Interest on Debts (Scotland) Act 1985 – Section 1”. While the tenor of the issues dealt with in these purported extracts were the subject of other legislation, the referenced rules and Act, and the quoted extracts, did not exist. Later, they indicated that they had obtained the case references using online AI tools, which led the sheriff to consider whether the lodging of these false legal references could constitute contempt of court.

Reckless reliance

In his decision, Sheriff MacRitchie first dealt with the issue of contempt of court, saying: “I am satisfied that the claimant has not knowingly attempted to interfere with the administration of justice in this manner, by wasting court time and misleading the court. However, there was a degree of recklessness in the claimant delaying verifying that the references produced by Artificial Intelligence were genuine, until only after the relative submissions were lodged.”

He added: “There is a fine line in this instance between whether the claimant and its individual partners, even as lay persons, have shown contempt for the court by not reasonably checking that such references were genuine before using them in this manner, or otherwise. In the foregoing circumstances, where I am satisfied that the claimant has acted in good faith and essentially withdrawn the references before the discussion, I have determined that the claimant and the individual partners’ conduct does not, in this instance, pass the relevant threshold for a contempt of court to have been committed and therefore that contempt proceedings do not require to be initiated.”

Considering the extent of the FtT’s jurisdiction, Sheriff MacRitchie said: “The powers transferred to the FtT appear to be wide-ranging and include ‘such powers as [are] necessary for the purposes of dealing with a particular subject area’. While the issue of whether a dispute ‘arises from’ a private residential tenancy depends on the individual circumstances of each case and is a matter of fact and degree, the natural and ordinary effect of the words ‘arising from’ is unrestricted and imprecise, and invites a wide, inclusive approach.”

He went on to say: “At first blush, one can see why one could surmise that a reference to civil disputes which might arise ‘during the course of a tenancy’ could be supportive of the claimant’s position. However, this is not the case, as the factual and legal reality remains that the rent arrears have still arisen during the tenancy, whether the course of the tenancy itself has later ceased or not.”

Sheriff MacRitchie concluded: “The claim is therefore dismissed as the sheriff court has neither jurisdiction nor competence to make the order sought. What this claim does highlight, is the dangers of a reckless reliance on Artificial Intelligence by any party without verifying that the same is genuine, and the potential for a party being found in contempt of court in circumstances such as these, even if done in good faith.”