Digital Deception in the Tribunal

In the case of Omar Rafique v HMRC, the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) flatly refused Mr Rafique’s (the Appellant) application to reinstate a struck-out appeal.

Background to the HMRC Debt

HMRC wrote to Mr Rafique on 2 April 2024 regarding an outstanding debt of £51,203.07 arising from penalties for deliberate behaviour that had been transferred to him as a result of his actions. One letter demanded immediate payment, while the second warned that bankruptcy proceedings could be commenced. Both letters referred to enclosed statements of debt or liabilities and noted that HMRC had previously attempted to contact the Appellant regarding his personal circumstances and any support he may require.

The Late Notice of Appeal

Mr Rafique filed a late Notice of Appeal on 4 April 2024, raising generic grounds regarding VAT and Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT), but failed to provide the actual decision letters he wished to contest.

Structural Issues With the Appeal

From the start, Mr Rafique’s original Notice of Appeal was structurally flawed. It lacked copies of the decision letters being challenged and failed to provide clear legal or factual grounds for the appeal.

Missed Deadlines and Unless Orders

After multiple missed deadlines and non-compliance by Mr Rafique, Judge Perez issued two strict “Unless Orders” (i.e., that if a party does not comply with specified requirements by a set deadline, their claim or response will be struck out or dismissed), on 12 May 2025, detailing 18 sub-paragraphs Mr Rafique needed to clarify or provide. The first Unless Order would result in the appeal being struck out automatically if Mr Rafique did not contact the FTT by the specified deadline of 11 July 2025.

Health Issues and a Further Extension

Following a missed compliance deadline of 11 July 2025, Mr Rafique suffered a heart attack on 16 July 2025. Taking his health into account, Judge Blackwell issued a further “Unless Order” on 22 July 2025, giving him an additional two months to comply and provide a verified medical certificate.

The Appeal Was Automatically Dismissed

Mr Rafique failed to submit either the required tax documents or a medical certificate by the 22 September 2025 deadline. Consequently, the case was automatically dismissed.

Application for Reinstatement

On 28 October 2025, Mr Rafique filed his application for reinstatement to the FTT.

Learn more about HMRC tax penalties and appeals here.

Key Takeaways from the Tribunal Case

The Use of AI in Modern Day Cases

The most critical aspect of this ruling centres around Mr Rafique’s use of AI to draft his correspondence and skeleton arguments.

1. AI-Generated Placeholders Were Left in the Text

The FTT noted that the emails contained empty brackets such as [Name of Agent/Third Party] and [insert date if known]. In one instance, the placeholder failure meant the Appellant completely omitted his factual explanation for missing a strict deadline. This was sufficient to prove that that text was generated by AI without any human review.

2. Fictitious and Irrelevant Case Law Was Cited

Multiple cases were cited by Mr Rafique which did not exist, had completely wrong citations or entirely irrelevant legal principles. It invented judicial decisions that looked completely legitimate, but blended authentic citations with completely fictitious legal rulings.

3. Genuine Case Law Was Used Out of Context

Even when AI cited genuine, existing case law, it stripped it of its proper legal context. It claimed these cases supported propositions they simply did not stand for, misleading the user.

AI Is Not Banned, But It Must Be Checked

The FTT made it clear that there is no absolute ban on using AI tools to draft correspondence or organise arguments. It acknowledged that AI could help bridge the resource gap between individual taxpayers and heavily funded state bodies like HMRC. However, using AI does not absolve a party from their fundamental duties to the court. The Judge emphasised that all parties, including litigants in person, are under a strict obligation to check the accuracy and truthfulness of any submissions they make and any cases they cite. The blame cannot be shifted to AI if it manufactures cases and/or the law.

AI Hallucinations Can Have Serious Legal Consequences

The FTT also issued an explicit warning regarding the consequences of submitting AI hallucinations and that presenting fictional case authorities to a court or tribunal as if they are genuine is a contempt of court. While the FTT Judge in this case chose not to issue a formal summons for contempt of court because Mr Rafique lacked prior awareness either of the concept of hallucinated cases or that he should check the authenticity of the cases he cited, it was Mr Rafique’s responsibility to check any case he relies upon is both genuine and does support the propositions he says it supports.

Illnesses Are Not a Blanket Excuse

Following a heart attack, Mr Rafique described experiencing reduced mobility and ongoing health challenges that hindered his ability to manage administrative tasks effectively. However, the FTT pointed out there was a lack of medical evidence to substantiate these claims and Mr Rafique had not provided the FTT with necessary documentation relating to his appeal, despite asserting that the materials were ready.

A Heart Attack Was a Compelling Circumstance, But Not Enough

While the FTT acknowledged that Mr Rafique did have a heart attack, and it was seen as a severely compelling circumstance, the FTT found that it did not legally justify the total breakdown of the appeal, especially during the period prior to the heart attack.

The Merits of a Case Do Not Override Case Management

The FTT’s refusal to reinstate the appeal highlights that although Mr Rafique believed that his underlying arguments around his VAT and SDLT liabilities had merit, the case never progressed far enough for those arguments to be heard because he failed to follow fundamental instructions and adhere to strict timelines and he had failed to provide sufficiently cogent documents and information to the tribunal.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, the FTT refused the application to set aside the strike-out confirmation and refused the application to reinstate the appeal.

In an era where technology allows businesses to move faster than ever, relying on ‘artificial’ intelligence without genuine human due diligence is a high-risk gamble which can transform a manageable tax dispute into an irreversible legal defeat.

This case illustrates that while AI can offer a superficial illusion of legal competence, it can easily lead to shortcuts, particularly where it offers litigants in person the promise of legal drafting at no cost. It serves as an important reminder that using AI without verifying the output it produces can destroy your case procedurally and expose you to severe penalties for contempt of court.

Using AI for Legal Support

At Chartergates, we are now encountering AI when representing clients frequently. Most often, it is being utilised by claimants making employment tribunal claims. While AI is helping claimants to make their claims, we are finding that beyond this, they often represent a tactical advantage for our clients. This is largely due to the factors highlighted in the Rafique case. Frequently, AI legal output, lacks the necessary detail, context and rationale to assist beyond the basics. These failings present us with opportunities to defend our clients robustly by presenting tribunals with the detail, context and rationale required to achieve the maximum result possible for our clients.