OBITER

AI Hallucination Cases: Australia

AI Hallucination Cases: Australia

This page records decisions from Australian courts involving instances where Artificial Intelligence (AI) produced false or fabricated legal content, known as ‘hallucinations’, that was submitted in court filings. Examples include non-existent case citations, fictitious legislation or judicial quotes, and misrepresented legal principles and propositions. This page is organised by jurisdiction, continually updated, and non-exhaustive (see Disclaimer).

Commonwealth | Queensland | Victoria | New South Wales | South Australia | Tasmania | Australian Capital Territory | Western Australia | Northern Territory

GENERATIVE AI:

Generative AI (‘GenAI’) refers to AI systems capable of generating ‘content’, such as text, images or music, in response to prompts.1 These systems may take the form of large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI ChatGPT, xAI Grok, Meta Llama, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot, and may include law-specific tools like Lexis+ AI, Westlaw Precision and LEAP Legal AI.2

Risks of AI:

Chief Justice Bowskill stresses that AI‑generated material can look authoritative even when it is entirely fake.3 Her Honour discusses the concept of ‘The Hallucinating Oracle: Output Risks’, noting that:

… Information provided by generative AI chatbots may be inaccurate, incomplete, or out of date. It may also be based on overseas law that does not apply in Australia – although this should change with the introduction of the LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters AI products. But putting such products to one side, generative AI chatbots can:

  • make up fake cases, citations and quotes, or refer to legislation, articles or legal texts that do not exist;
  • provide incorrect or misleading information about the law or how it might apply in a case; and
  • get facts wrong.4

Consequences:

Using GenAI without independently verifying its output for legal research or drafting may expose legal practitioners, self-represented litigants, and law students to serious consequences, including:

  • referral to legal regulatory bodies for potential professional misconduct;
  • imposition of adverse costs orders;
  • misleading the court;
  • contempt of court;
  • delaying proceedings;
  • increasing costs for all parties;
  • academic misconduct findings at university;
  • expulsion from a law program;
  • copyright infringement; and
  • undermining procedural fairness.

Judicial Integrity:

Misuse of artificial intelligence undermines the court’s ability to rely on filed materials, posing a broader risk to the integrity of the judicial process. In a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria, a Victorian barrister (KC) filed written submissions containing AI‑generated ‘hallucinations’ in a murder case.5 Justice Elliott warned of broader risks to the administration of justice ([79]–[80]):

Regrettable as it is to single out counsel and their instructing solicitors in this case for what has occurred, in light of the matters set out above it is important to record that counsel must take full and ultimate responsibility for any submissions made to the court. To this end, it is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified. The same may be said for solicitors responsible for producing or filing court documents.

The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice. Self-evidently, as was immediately and unequivocally acknowledged by counsel in this case, any use of artificial intelligence without careful and attentive oversight of counsel would seriously undermine the court’s processes and its ability to deliver justice in a timely and cost-effective manner.6

False Criminal Accusations:

There have also been instances in which AI‑generated outputs included potentially harmful claims, such as false allegations against individuals. For example, Microsoft’s Copilot fictitiously reported that a German journalist had confessed to a serious crime.7 The AI tool described him as ‘an escapee from a psychiatric institution, a con-man who preyed on widowers, a drug dealer and a violent criminal’.8 But in reality, these were AI ‘hallucinations’ based on court cases the journalist had previously written about. Similarly, in Australia, a Victorian mayor was falsely described by OpenAI’s ChatGPT as having been charged with serious criminal offences, despite in fact being a whistleblower.9

Guidelines:

The Supreme Court of Queensland has issued revised guidelines dated 15 September 2025: The Use of Generative AI: Guidelines for Judicial Officers, which have been adopted by the Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Courts (among others). See also Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers (Qld Courts).10

Queensland:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Supreme Court of QueenslandMoore (Scheme Administrator) v Ochkit Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2026] QSC 15
(17 February 2026)		The self‑represented litigants (Respondents) used artificial intelligence in their submissions, which resulted in hallucinated and irrelevant case references (see [54], [61]). Treston J said at [61]: ‘… those submissions were substantially AI generated containing references which were incorrect, and cases which did not exist. […] Whilst it is understandable that self-represented people find complex legal matters difficult to litigate in superior courts, self-represented litigants must nevertheless comply with the same rules and practises as other litigants in this court. Here, there was not compliance with Practice Direction No 5 of 2025, and the non-compliance caused significant difficulty in understanding the genuine issues …’11
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)Rinaldi v Department of Justice (Right to Information and Privacy) [2026] QCATA 11 (16 February 2026)The Appellant made references to two decisions in their submissions that do not exist ([36]–[37]).12 The Tribunal said (at [38]): ‘[i]t would appear the appellant has used artificial intelligence to generate part of his submission. The dangers of using artificial intelligence for legal research have been well-documented so as to avoid the risk of misleading the Tribunal, giving rise to a possible charge of contempt. Parties to proceedings in the Tribunal, and indeed in other Tribunals and courts should check to ensure that cases referred to are actual cases and support the proposition they are submitting’.13
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)Carrington v TAFE Queensland [2025] QIRC 340 (5 December 2025)The Appellant’s agent provided references to case authorities in reply submissions.14 Industrial Commissioner O’Neill (‘O’Neill IC’) stated at [132]: ‘[i]t appears that the citation of those matters may result from the use of an Artificial Intelligence search engine. I repeat the warning for litigants I provided in Goodchild v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)15 of the danger in relying on artificial intelligence search engines when preparing submissions to be filed in a Court or Tribunal.’16 O’Neill IC further stated at [133]: ‘[i]f parties intend to rely upon such sources of information, it is important that they verify that the case authorities provided by the search engine are actually genuine decisions prior to filing their submissions.’17 No reliance was placed on the authorities in the matter.18
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 300
(5 November 2025)		The self‑represented litigant (Applicant) submitted authorities that, while containing party names and parts of a medium‑neutral citation, lacked case numbers and paragraph references (see [22]–[25]).19 Industrial Commissioner Pratt (‘Pratt IC’) was unable to locate any of those decisions or quoted passages ([25]).20 The Applicant admitted the authorities were from artificial intelligence, relying on ChatGPT in preparing submissions and reply (at [25]).21 Pratt IC dismissed the matter ([49]).22
Supreme Court of QueenslandKhoury v Kooij [2025] QSC 217 (3 September 2025)Litigant in person’s (Applicant’s) use of generative AI that produced hallucinations: citing false names and cases, fabricating quotes in written submissions, and referring to a non‑existent legislative sub‑paragraph ([15]–[17]).23
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QIRC 141 (2 June 2025)Litigant in person’s (Complainant’s) use of AI that produced fabricated case law in written submissions (see [48], [77]–[78]).24
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Wise and Wise Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCAT 222 (13 May 2025)The self‑represented litigants’ (Respondents’) use of false case citations and reliance on four non‑existent cases as authorities in submissions (see [52]–[55]).25
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96 (26 March 2025)The self‑represented litigant (Applicant) made submissions in support of a stay application generated using ChatGPT, which contained non‑existent case citations relied upon as authorities in support of the arguments (see [18]–[19], [21]–[22]).26 J Dann stated at [23]: ‘Queensland Courts have issued Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non‑Lawyers. … These guidelines apply in the Tribunal.’27
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)Goodchild v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 46
(13 February 2025)		The self‑represented litigant’s (Applicant’s) use of internet search engines or AI to cite five non‑existent Fair Work Commission decisions as authorities (see [29], [36]–[39]).28 O’Neill IC stated at [36]: ‘… [u]tilising a number of legal search resources and the Fair Work Commission website, no decisions as identified by the Applicant could be located, either by party name or file number.’29 O’Neill IC noted at [39]: ‘[t]his appears to be a salutary lesson for litigants in the dangers of relying on general search engines on the internet or artificial intelligence when preparing legal documents.’30 O’Neill IC gave no weight to the authorities cited.31
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust AND Others (No. 5) [2025] QIRC 016 (14 January 2025)The litigant in person’s (Respondent’s) likely use of AI in the final limb of an application for an adjournment ([8]).32
Sources: Supreme Court Library Queensland, https://www.sclqld.org.au/collections/caselaw; Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/qld/

Victoria:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)A’Vard v Mornington Peninsula SC [2025] VCAT 1035 (8 December 2025)The self‑represented litigant (Applicant) advised that they used artificial intelligence to gather cases to present as part of the submission ([47]).33 The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the artificial intelligence citations were incorrect.34
Supreme Court of Victoria — Common Law DivisionRe Walker [2025] VSC 714
(24 November 2025)		The Defendant’s solicitor used artificial intelligence (AI) in preparing their client’s written opening submissions (at [58]).35 The solicitor admitted they had drafted the Defendant’s submissions and had done so in part by using ‘an AI-assisted legal research software tool’, for which her firm held a paid subscription ([67]),36 CourtAid and Chat GPT (at [71]).37 The solicitor’s use is contrary to guidelines published by the Court in relation to the use by practitioners of AI tools and resulted in reliance being placed upon non-existent or ‘hallucinated’ citations ([58]).38 Moore J stated at [73]: ‘[i]n broad terms, the solicitor’s conduct in filing with the Court submissions which contained non-existent authorities is the product of three things: (a) her stated ignorance of the ‘hallucinatory tendencies’ of the AI tools that she used; (b) her ignorance of the Guidelines issued by the Court; and (c) her failure to check or confirm the accuracy of citations generated by AI tools which were included in the submissions.’39 Moore J determined that the solicitor’s conduct amounted to unprofessional conduct (at [80]).40 In Moore J’s assessment, a reprimand was imposed on the solicitor for their conduct ([82]).41
Supreme Court of Victoria — Court of AppealStewart v Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand [2025] VSCA 206
(29 August 2025)		The litigant in person’s (Applicant’s) use of AI in written submissions, including fabricated authorities and citations; arguments supported in places by reference to non‑existent authorities; and references to passages in real authorities that bore no relationship to the argument (see [62]–[63]).42
County Court of VictoriaWang v Moutidis [2025] VCC 1156 (18 August 2025)The litigant in person’s (Defendant’s) use of GenAI in written submissions resulted in hallucinations, including a non‑existent VCAT decision and a legally incorrect proposition ([15]).43 The submission cited a purported decision fabricated by GenAI.44
Supreme Court of Victoria —Criminal DivisionDirector of Public Prosecutions v GR [2025] VSC 490 (14 August 2025)The Defendant’s Senior Counsel filed AI‑generated submissions in this murder case. The AI hallucinations included non‑existent cases, fictitious quotations (said to be from parts of the Second Reading Speech and the Commission’s Report), and fabricated case references (see G. Use of artificial intelligence, [61]–[80]).45 Senior Counsel admitted that the submissions filed were wrong and further noted that the cases referred to were incorrectly cited and did not apply to this matter ([66]).46 Elliott J stated at [73]: ‘[t]he pervasiveness of potentially misleading information caused by the use of artificial intelligence did not end there. The revised submissions filed the afternoon before the hearing were not properly reviewed by defence or prosecution counsel. … [The] revised submissions referred to legislation that did not exist, and also a provision in the Act that was said to have been inserted and then repealed, which in fact never occurred and which provision never existed.’47
Supreme Court of Victoria — Court of AppealNikolic & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VSCA 112
(23 May 2025)		The litigants’ (Plaintiffs’) purported use of two non‑existent decisions in cost submissions. Beach JA said at [39]: ‘[t]hey are most probably hallucinations of the kind referred to in paragraph 7(a) of the New South Wales Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23, which deals with the use of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) in that Court.’48
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)Bangholme Investments Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2025] VCAT 290
(3 April 2025)		The self-represented person’s (Joinder of Party to the Application) use of AI‑generated material to determine Tribunal processes. The Tribunal said that ‘[t]he result of the AI search is plainly incorrect’ ([14]–[16]).49
Supreme Court of Victoria — Court of AppealKaur v RMIT [2024] VSCA 264 (11 November 2024)The litigant in person’s (Applicant’s) application for leave to appeal included several documents that appeared to have been drafted with the assistance of a large language model artificial intelligence (LLM AI), such as ChatGPT, and which contained case citations to non‑existent cases ([26]).50
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/vic/

New South Wales:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Supreme Court of New South WalesIn the matter of Bayfoyle Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1607
(23 December 2025)		Black J accepted that the solicitor cited several non‑existent (or ‘AI‑hallucinated’) cases in submissions likely generated by artificial intelligence, thereby breaching duties under Practice Note SC Gen 23 and r 19 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules, but found that this had no real impact on the hearing (at [43]).51 Black J declined to refer the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner, leaving the option open to the opposing party ([43]).52
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)Huang v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 271
(30 October 2025)		The self‑represented litigant (Appellant) submitted Amended Grounds of Appeal. The Tribunal found that they had used generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in their preparation, as evident from the document and conceded by them (at [123]).53 The Tribunal observed (at [124]) that paragraph 16 of NCAT Procedural Direction 7 (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence) requires that, where generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has been used in preparing submissions or summaries, parties must include in the body of the document a verification that all cited authorities, case law, legislation and references exist, are accurately reproduced and are relevant to the proceedings.54
NSW Industrial Relations Commission (IRC)Howe v Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education [2025] NSWIRComm 1081
(17 September 2025)		The litigant in person’s (Applicant’s) alleged use of generative AI in the preparation of submissions (see [26]–[28]).55 The third case cited could not be located by the Commission ([26]).56 The Respondent speculated, based on a similar process of searching for the cases, that the Applicant’s submissions were prepared using generative artificial intelligence (at [27]).57 In cross examination, the Applicant denied creating the submissions using generative AI ([28]).58 
District Court of New South WalesGribble v ESSENTIAL ENERGY trading as Essential Energy [2025] NSWDC 344
(29 August 2025)		The self‑represented litigant’s (Plaintiff’s) pleadings show clear evidence of using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) ([33]).59 The Plaintiff conceded that they had used GenAI (at [38]).60 Gibson DCJ expressed concern about how courts should handle such AI‑generated ‘hallucinations’ and self‑represented litigants (see [39]–[44]).61
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)Meniscus Pty Ltd ATF The Meniscus Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAD 209
(21 August 2025)		The litigant in person (Applicant) stated that they had used generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in the preparation of their submissions (Google Gemini and ChatGPT) ([37]).62 The Tribunal placed more weight on the records included in the Applicant’s bundles rather than on the submissions that were prepared by the Applicant with the use of GenAI ([40]).63
Supreme Court of New South Wales — Court of AppealMay v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178 (8 August 2025)The self‑represented litigant’s (Respondent’s) use of generative AI in preparing oral submissions included a list of authorities, a non‑existent case, and others which, although they existed, had little to do with the legal issues in this case (see [3]–[17], [49]).64
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)HFI v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 171
(17 July 2025)		The litigant in person (Applicant) stated that they had drafted the content of their statements and then uploaded the documents to ChatGPT to improve them ([40]).65 The Applicant also used ChatGPT to prepare supplementary submissions including case references (at [40]).66 J Smith stated at [41]: ‘Clause 14 of NCAT Practice Direction 7 – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence states that generative artificial intelligence must not be used for the purpose of altering, embellishing, strengthening or diluting, or otherwise rephrasing, a witness’s evidence when expressed in written form.’67
District Court of New South WalesBottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 221
(20 June 2025)		The use of GenAI by the Second Defendant resulted in submissions that contained errors due to reliance on artificial intelligence sources ([11]).68 The submissions consisted largely of inaccurate legal principles as a result of having been drafted using artificial intelligence programs (see [14], [68]–[69]).69
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/nsw/

Commonwealth:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (ART)ZBDD AND Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 553 (8 April 2026)The Tribunal noted that in the Witness Statement, the Applicant cites and relies upon a Commissioner’s Ruling that appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence (at [110]).70 The Tribunal found that JK’s Witness Statement is entirely inaccurate as to what that ruling is about and says, and has therefore put those submissions aside (at [110]).71 In the annexure, the Applicant relied upon 70 cases, none of which include a proper citation; the Outline contains even more cases (including repeated cases) with improper citations (at [112].72
Administrative Review Tribunal (ART)Smith and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 25 (12 January 2026)The litigant in person (Applicant) cites cases in support of his submissions that, if they exist at all, do not support the principles he asserts (see [82]–[84]).73 J Dunne said at [83]: ‘[t]he Tribunal is not certain that this has occurred in the present case, but comments that if artificial intelligence is used as a research tool by litigants before the Tribunal, each case identified by artificial intelligence needs to be located on public websites (such as www.austlii.edu.au) … and (assuming it exists) read in order to ensure it stands for the proposition for which it is cited before it is put to the Tribunal. Otherwise, the Tribunal’s time and scarce resources are being wasted, as the Tribunal must look for cases that do not exist and read cases that have no relevance at all.’74
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) — Appellate DivisionTekla & Tekla [2025] FedCFamC1A 245
(23 December 2025)		The litigant in person (Appellant) submitted a Summary of Argument that appears to have been created using generative artificial intelligence:
(a) citing a non‑existent case (purported to be a 2004 FCoA case) and misstating a test from an existing case;
(b) incorrectly citing authority in support of family violence relevance, despite the case rejecting such claims ([46]);
(c) relying upon two cases, with a 2016 citation and a 2007 citation, which do not exist; and (d) relying upon an incorrect case citation and claiming that it stands for a proposition that does not appear in the judgment (see [11]–[14]).75 Riethmuller J did not include the alleged citations of the non‑existent cases to avoid search engines indexing them and potentially misleading others ([15]).76
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129
(22 December 2025)		The Applicant’s legal counsel filed an outline of written submissions referring to a number of authorities that do not exist (see [27]–[28]).77 Counsel conceded that the cited authorities did not exist and were unable to be provided ([30]).78 On behalf of the Applicant’s solicitors, counsel admitted that the submissions had been generated using artificial intelligence and that the solicitors had failed to verify the cited cases ([30]).79 Gerrard J said at [31]: ‘[t]he issues arising from the representative’s ill‑conceived reliance on AI hallucinated authorities will be considered in a separate judgment’.80
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) — Appellate DivisionRathi & Rathi [2025] FedCFamC1A 238
(22 December 2025)		Williams J rejected the litigant in person’s (Appellant’s) contention that s 97(3) or s 43(c) of the Act supports their submission, as there is no s 43(c) ([40]).81 The reliance on those two sections of the Act in the submissions clearly demonstrates that the Appellant relied on generative artificial intelligence (AI) ([40]).82 As the appeal wholly lacked merit, it was dismissed by Williams J ([73]).83
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) — Appellate DivisionMertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222
(28 November 2025)		The Appellant’s solicitor drafted, with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI program not identified), the Appellant’s originally filed Summary of Argument and List of Authorities, resulting in the Court being provided with inaccurate and misleading references to case law “hallucinations”.84 Aldridge, Carew and Behrens JJ (at [12]) cited Helmold & Mariya (No 2) (2025) FLC 94-272 (‘Helmold & Mariya‘), in a case where a self-represented litigant had used AI in preparation of a Summary of Argument, ‘[r]eliance upon unverified research generated by AI has the capacity to confuse, to create unnecessary complexity, to result in wasted time and to mislead the Court and other parties’ ([8]).85 Their Honours (at [14]) considered Justice A. Humphreys in Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 (‘Dayal‘): ‘[i]n Dayal, her Honour referred a legal practitioner to the Office of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner in circumstances where he had acknowledged that he had used an “AI driven research tool module” to generate a list of authorities and summaries provided to the Court, that he had not reviewed the results produced by the module to ensure their accuracy, and that the authorities did not exist. Her Honour identified the significant risks which attend the use of AI tools in legal practice and identified the relevant duties of legal practitioners, including the duty not to mislead the Court, to deliver legal services competently and diligently and not to engage in conduct which is likely to diminish public confidence in the administration of justice or bring the legal profession into disrepute. Those obligations extend, of course, not only to the use of AI but also to addressing difficulties when they are identified (as they were here)’. 86 The matter was referred to the relevant professional disciplinary bodies for consideration of the conduct.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)Hugo v Affinity Education Group Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1536
 (18 September 2025)		The litigant in person’s (Applicant’s) use of AI in their submissions referred to and cited non‑existent authorities.87 Liveris J considered the circumstances similar to Finch v The Heat Group.88 Liveris J stated at [70]: ‘[t]he court has repeatedly and increasingly emphasised the cautions required in the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings by legal practitioners and parties, particularly where the use of artificial intelligence is not disclosed, material produced through artificial intelligence is not verified and no certification as to accuracy is given’.89
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)Helmold v Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163
(12 September 2025)		The litigant in person’s (Appellant’s) use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) arose in the Family Law proceedings. The Appellant deployed generative AI to prepare their written documents (Notice of Appeal and Summary of Argument), citing fictitious cases (see [5]–[6]).90
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)Re Dayal (2024) 386 FLR 359 (27 August 2024)The solicitor appearing as agent tendered to the court a list and summary of legal authorities that do not exist ([1]). The solicitor informed the court that the list and summary had been prepared using an artificial intelligence (‘AI’) tool incorporated in the legal practice‑management software he subscribes to (LEAP) ([1]).91 The solicitor acknowledges that he did not verify the accuracy of the information generated by the research tool before submitting it to the court ([1]).92 Justice A. Humphreys held (at [15]) that generative AI does not relieve the responsible legal practitioner of the need to exercise judgment and professional skill in reviewing the final product to be provided to the Court.93 Her Honour stated at [21]: ‘… I consider the Office of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner are the appropriate body and official to determine if there should be any further investigation or action taken in respect of the solicitor’s conduct in this instance. I also consider it is in the public interest for the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner to be aware of the professional conduct issues arising in this matter, given the increasing use of AI tools by legal practitioners in litigation more generally.’94
Federal Court of Australia — General DivisionJML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) (2025) FCA 976 (19 August 2025)The self-represented litigant (First Respondent) used a form of generative artificial intelligence (AI), to assist with written and oral submissions for an Annulment Application (at [7]).95 Wheatley J said at [7]: ‘[m]any of the case citations were inaccurate. Some of the purported quoted passages did not exist. Such matters are likely the product of “hallucinations”. There has been an approach, which I will adopt, of redacting false case citations so that such information is not further propagated by AI systems.’96
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314
(15 August 2025)		The Applicant’s lawyer filed written submissions with the Court that contained four case citations of authorities that either do not exist or do not stand as authority for the proposition (see [1], [26]).97 The Applicant’s lawyer filed an affidavit in which they advised that they had relied upon Claude AI ‘… as a research tool to identify potentially relevant authorities and to improve my legal arguments and position’ ([14]).98 The Applicant’s lawyer said that they then used another AI tool, Microsoft Copilot, to validate the submissions ([14]).99 The Court relied on Valu (No 2), where Skaros J determined that filing an application and submissions which contained, inter alia, fictitious citations was conduct that fell short of the legal representatives’ duties to both their client and the Court ([18]).100
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) (2025) 386 FLR 365
(31 January 2025)
(JADE)		The Applicant’s legal representative (ALR) filed submissions that contained citations to Federal Court of Australia cases that do not exist, and alleged quotes from the Tribunal that did not exist (hallucinations).101 The ALR stated that they had used AI to identify Australian cases, but it had provided them with non‑existent case law ([10]).102 Skaros J held that, given the strong public interest in referring this sort of conduct to the regulatory authority in NSW, and given the increased use of generative AI tools by legal practitioners, the ALR should be referred to the OLSC (see [37]–[38]).103
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957
(19 July 2024)		The solicitor appearing as agent tendered a list of authorities (four case citations) that could not be located by Justice A. Humphreys.104 The solicitor indicated that the list had been prepared using the legal software package LEAP, which uses artificial intelligence (see [6]–[7]).105 Her Honour ordered (at [10]) that the practitioner be given an opportunity to explain why their conduct in tendering the list of authorities should not be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.106
Federal Court of Australia (General Division)Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria [2025] FCA 731
(22 April 2025)		The Applicant filed a document titled ‘Applicant’s Summary of Native Title Claim Group and Decision Making Process’ that contained numerous footnotes referencing anthropological and historical reports and papers relied upon by the applicant ([3]).107 First Nations Legal and Research Services (‘FNLRS’) concluded that most of the cited documents did not exist, and others existed but were incorrectly cited. FNLRS described the citations as ‘fabricated’ ([4]).108 Justice Murphy understood this as a reference to generative AI, to fabricate or ‘hallucinate’ information that appears reliable but is not grounded in fact ([4]).109 The false document citations likely arose from the use of generative AI, possibly through Google Scholar ([8]).110 His Honour did not consider that the use of AI in this case made it appropriate to refer the solicitors’ conduct to the Victorian Legal Services Board ([14]).111 His Honour considered it appropriate to order that the Applicant’s solicitor to personally pay the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis, incurred as a result of the firm’s use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of documents ([16]).112
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cth/; BarNet Jade, https://jade.io/

South Australia:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Supreme Court of South AustraliaRowe v National Australia Bank Ltd [2025] SASC 50
(17 April 2025)		The litigants in person (Applicants) used AI in their written and oral submissions ([37]).113 The Applicants relied on three High Court decisions and a NSW Court of Appeal decision.114 These decisions do not exist and are likely AI hallucinations (B Doyle J).115
Supreme Court of South AustraliaHanna v Flinders University [2025] SASC 6
(29 January 2025)		The Appellant sought to rely on an authority for which the citation they provided did not align with any judgment of an Australian court.116 Having conducted further enquiries, Hughes J was satisfied at [68]: ‘… the authority cited was generated by artificial intelligence and does not correlate with a decision of an Australian court. I do not consider that the appellant has misled the Court deliberately but has mistakenly assumed that her internet searches would yield accurate results.’117
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/sa/; Thomson Reuters Westlaw Australia, https://www.thomsonreuters.com

Tasmania:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Supreme Court of TasmaniaLakaev v McConkey [2024] TASSC 35 (12 July 2024)The self‑represented litigant (Appellant) referred in their submissions to the High Court’s decision in De L v Director‑General, NSW Department of Community Services (1996) 187 CLR 640 (‘De L’) ([55]).118 The Appellant’s commentary on De L suggested that it involved an appeal challenging the veracity of a witness’s evidence.119 However, De L concerned international child abduction law and was unrelated to issues of false evidence.120 The Appellant relied on a case that appears to not exist, although there is an unrelated case bearing the same citation.121 Blow CJ warned of the risk of using AI, stating (at [54]) ‘… [w]hen artificial intelligence is used to generate submissions for use in court proceedings, there is a risk that the submissions that are produced will be affected by a phenomenon known as “hallucination”‘. 122 The appeal was dismissed.
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/tas/

Australian Capital Territory:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital TerritoryDPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19 (7 February 2024)The offender tendered a character reference that appeared to have been generated by, or rewritten with the assistance of, an LLM such as ChatGPT. 123 Mossop J said (at [43]): ‘[i]n my view, it is clearly inappropriate that personal references used in sentencing proceedings are generated by, or with the assistance of, large language models as, if they are not objected to on that basis, it becomes difficult for the court to work out what, if any, weight can be placed upon the facts and opinions set out in them’.124
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/act/

Western Australia:

COURT/TRIBUNALCASE CITATION (DATE)AI HALLUCINATION
Supreme Court of Western Australia — Court of AppealNash v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2023] WASCA 75 (8 May 2023)On appeal against conviction, the self‑represented litigant (Appellant) prepared the case, with possible assistance in later submissions (perhaps from an AI program such as ChatGPT).125 Quinlan CJ said at [9]: ‘[n]either form of submission made coherent submissions as to why the trial judge’s decision was affected by material error or otherwise gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. Nor did the material sought to be adduced by … [the appellant] as additional evidence on the appeal disclose any miscarriage of justice.’126 Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed.127
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/wa/

Northern Territory:

As at 4 March 2026, there are no reported cases.

Footnotes:

  1. Lyria Bennett Moses, Michael Legg, Jake Silove and Monika Zalnieriute, AI Decision‑Making and the Courts: A Guide for Judges, Tribunal Members and Court Administrators (Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, revised ed, December 2023) <https://aija.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/AIJA_AI-DecisionMakingReport_2023update.pdf>, quoting G Bell, J Burgess, J Thomas and S Sadiq, Rapid Response Information Report: Generative AI – Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Foundation Models (MFMs) (Australian Council of Learned Academies, 2023). ↩︎
  2. Supreme Court of New South Wales, Practice Note SC Gen 23 – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) (Practice Note, 28 January 2025) <https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_SC_Gen_23.pdf> (‘Practice Note’). ↩︎
  3. Helen Bowskill, Navigating the AI Abyss: Ethical Challenges in the Age of GenAI (Speech, Supreme Court Library Queensland, 12 September 2024) <https://archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/2024/bowskill20240912.pdf> 4. ↩︎
  4. Ibid 3–4. Chief Justice Bowskill refers to cases from the United States, Canada, and Australia: Mata v Avianca Inc, 678 F Supp 3d 443 (SD NY, 2023) (fabricated cases, quotations and citations generated by ChatGPT); Zhang v Chen [2024] BCSC 285 (non‑existent case citations); and DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19, where Mossop J identified the risks of using generative AI to produce evidentiary material, an offender’s character reference, 5–7. ↩︎
  5. Director of Public Prosecutions v GR [2025] VSC 490, [61]–[80] (Elliott J) (‘GR‘). ↩︎
  6. Ibid [79]–[80]; see also, Supreme Court of Victoria, Guidelines for Litigants: Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Litigation (Web Page, May 2024) <https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/forms-fees-and-services/forms-templates-and-guidelines/guideline-responsible-use-of-ai-in-litigation>. ↩︎
  7. Anna Kelsey-Sugg and Damien Carrick, ‘AI Hallucinations Caused Artificial Intelligence to Falsely Describe These People as Criminals’, ABC News (online, 4 November 2024) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-04/ai-artificial-intelligence-hallucinations-defamation-chatgpt/104518612>. ↩︎
  8. Ibid. ↩︎
  9. Laura Mayers, Stephen Martin and Debbie Rybicki, ‘Hepburn Mayor May Sue OpenAI for Defamation Over False ChatGPT Claims’, ABC News (online, 6 April 2023) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-06/hepburn-mayor-flags-legal-action-over-false-chatgpt-claims/102195610>. In this 2023 instance, a Victorian councillor considered initiating a defamation action against OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, after the AI tool falsely described the mayor as a guilty party in a bribery scandal instead of identifying him as the whistleblower. ↩︎
  10. Supreme Court of Queensland, The Use of Generative AI: Guidelines for Judicial Officers (Guidelines, 15 September 2025) <https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/the-use-of-generative-ai-guidelines-for-judicial-officers.pdf>; Queensland Courts, Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers (Guidelines, 15 September 2025) <https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Artificial-Intelligence_Guidelines-for-Non-Lawyers.pdf> (‘Guidelines’). ↩︎
  11. Moore (Scheme Administrator) v Ochkit Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2026] QSC 15, [61] (Treston J); see Supreme Court of Queensland, Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (12 February 2025) <https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0010/882064/sc-pd-5-pf-2025.pdf>. ↩︎
  12. Rinaldi v Department of Justice (Right to Information and Privacy) [2026] QCATA 11, [36]–[37]. ↩︎
  13. Ibid [38]. ↩︎
  14. Carrington v TAFE Queensland [2025] QIRC 340, [125] (O’Neill IC) (‘Carrington‘). ↩︎
  15. Goodchild v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 46 (‘Goodchild‘). ↩︎
  16. Carrington (n 14) [132]. ↩︎
  17. Ibid [133]. ↩︎
  18. Ibid [131]. ↩︎
  19. Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 300, [22]–[25]. ↩︎
  20. Ibid [25]. ↩︎
  21. Ibid. ↩︎
  22. Ibid [49]. ↩︎
  23. Khoury v Kooij [2025] QSC 217, 5 [15]–[17] (Martin SJA). ↩︎
  24. Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QIRC 141, 14 [48], 20 [77]–[78]. ↩︎
  25. Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Wise and Wise Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCAT 222, 11 [52]–[55]; see also LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96 (J Dann) (‘LJY‘). ↩︎
  26. LJY (n 25) [18]–[19], [21]–[22] (J Dann). ↩︎
  27. Ibid [23]; see Guidelines (n 10); see also Mathew Lee, ‘AI Hallucinations and Court Users: LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia and an Emerging UK–Australian Divide?’ (2025) Natural and Artificial Law (Web Page) <https://naturalandartificiallaw.com/ai-hallucinations-by-chatgpt>. ↩︎
  28. Goodchild (n 15) 9 [29], 11 [36]–[39]. ↩︎
  29. Ibid 11 [36]. ↩︎
  30. Ibid 11 [39]. ↩︎
  31. Ibid. ↩︎
  32. SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust AND Others (No. 5) [2025] QIRC 016, 4 [8]. ↩︎
  33. A’Vard v Mornington Peninsula SC [2025] VCAT 1035, [47]. ↩︎
  34. Ibid. ↩︎
  35. Re Walker [2025] VSC 714, [58] (Moore J). ↩︎
  36. Ibid [67]. ↩︎
  37. Ibid [71]. ↩︎
  38. Ibid [58]. ↩︎
  39. Ibid [73]. ↩︎
  40. Ibid [80]. ↩︎
  41. Ibid [82]. ↩︎
  42. Stewart v Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand [2025] VSCA 206, [62]–[63] (Richards JA). ↩︎
  43. Wang v Moutidis [2025] VCC 1156, [15] (Kirton J). ↩︎
  44. Ibid. ↩︎
  45. GR (n 5) [61]–[80]. ↩︎
  46. Ibid [66]; AP, ‘Senior Lawyer Apologises After Filing AI-generated Submissions in Victorian Murder Case’, ABC News (online, 15 August 2025) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-15/victoria-lawyer-apologises-after-ai-generated-submissions/105661208>. ↩︎
  47. GR (n 5) [73]. Elliot J said at [78] that ‘[i]n May 2024, this court published “Guidelines for litigants. Responsible use of artificial intelligence in litigation”. It is essential that all litigants and practitioners adhere to these guidelines’, quoted in GR. ↩︎
  48. Nikolic & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VSCA 112, [36]–[39]; Practice Note (n 2). ↩︎
  49. Bangholme Investments Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2025] VCAT 290, [14]–[15]. ↩︎
  50. Kaur v RMIT [2024] VSCA 264, [26] (Walker JA). ↩︎
  51. In the matter of Bayfoyle Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1607, [43] (Black J). ↩︎
  52. Ibid. ↩︎
  53. Huang v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 271, [123]. ↩︎
  54. Ibid [124]; NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, NCAT Procedural Direction 7 – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) (Procedural Direction, 7 March 2025) <https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/documents/procedural-directions/ncat-pd7-use-of-generative-ai.pdf> (‘Procedural Direction’). ↩︎
  55. Howe v Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education [2025] NSWIRComm 1081, [26]–[29] (Commissioner Muir) (‘Howe‘). ↩︎
  56. Ibid [26]. ↩︎
  57. Ibid [27]. ↩︎
  58. Ibid [28]. ↩︎
  59. Gribble v ESSENTIAL ENERGY trading as Essential Energy [2025] NSWDC 344, [33]. ↩︎
  60. Ibid [38]. ↩︎
  61. Ibid [39]–[44]. ↩︎
  62. Meniscus Pty Ltd ATF The Meniscus Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAD 209, [37]. ↩︎
  63. Ibid [40]. ↩︎
  64. May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178, [3]–[17], [49]. ↩︎
  65. HFI v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 171, [40]. ↩︎
  66. Ibid. ↩︎
  67. Ibid [40]–[41], [114]; Procedural Direction (n 54); Practice Note (n 2). ↩︎
  68. Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 221, [11] (Gibson DCJ). ↩︎
  69. Ibid [14], [68]–[69]. ↩︎
  70. ZBDD AND Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 553, [110]. ↩︎
  71. Ibid. ↩︎
  72. Ibid [112]. ↩︎
  73. Smith and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 25, [82]–[84]. ↩︎
  74. Ibid [83]. ↩︎
  75. Tekla & Tekla [2025] FedCFamC1A 245, [11]–[14] (Riethmuller J). ↩︎
  76. Ibid [15]. ↩︎
  77. Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129, [27]–[28]. ↩︎
  78. Ibid [30]. ↩︎
  79. Ibid. ↩︎
  80. Ibid [31]. ↩︎
  81. Rathi & Rathi [2025] FedCFamC1A 238, [40] (Williams J). ↩︎
  82. Ibid. ↩︎
  83. Ibid [73]. ↩︎
  84. Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222 (Aldridge, Carew and Behrens JJ) (‘Mertz‘). ↩︎
  85. Ibid [8], [12]; see Helmold & Mariya (No 2) (2025) FLC 94-272. ↩︎
  86. Mertz (n 84) [14]. ↩︎
  87. Hugo v Affinity Education Group Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1536, [69] (Liveris J) (‘Hugo‘). ↩︎
  88. Ibid; see Finch v The Heat Group [2024] FedCFamC2G161, [137]–[138] (Riley J). ↩︎
  89. Hugo (n 87) [70]. ↩︎
  90. Helmold v Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163, [5]–[6] (Aldridge, Campton and Christie JJ). ↩︎
  91. Re Dayal (2024) 386 FLR 359, [1] (A. Humphreys J) (‘Re Dayal‘). LEAP (Legal Electronic Access Program) refers to a widely used cloud-based legal practice management software designed in Australia. LEAP has an integrated AI solution. ↩︎
  92. Ibid. ↩︎
  93. Ibid 359, 360 [1], [10]–[15]. ↩︎
  94. Ibid 363 [21]. Office of the ‘Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner’ (VLSBC). ↩︎
  95. JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) (2025) FCA 97, [7] (Wheatley J). ↩︎
  96. Ibid. ↩︎
  97. JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, [1], [26] (Gerrard J). ↩︎
  98. Ibid [14]. ↩︎
  99. Ibid. ↩︎
  100. Ibid [18]; Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) (2025) 386 FLR 365 (‘Valu No 2‘). ↩︎
  101. Valu No 2 (n 100) 367 [1]–[4], 368 [18]. ↩︎
  102. Ibid 367 [1]–[4], [10]. ↩︎
  103. Ibid 371 [37]–[38]. ↩︎
  104. Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957 (A Humphreys J). ↩︎
  105. Ibid [6]–[7]. ↩︎
  106. Ibid [10]. ↩︎
  107. Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria [2025] FCA 731, [3] (‘Murray‘). In this case, an inexperienced junior solicitor relied on an AI‑assisted tool (allegedly Google Scholar) that generated false citations, which the firm promptly corrected, with both the junior and principal solicitors offering genuine apologies to the parties and the Court, from Murray [8], [14] (Murphy J). ↩︎
  108. Ibid [4]. ↩︎
  109. Ibid. ↩︎
  110. Ibid [8]. ↩︎
  111. Ibid [14]. ↩︎
  112. Ibid [16]. ↩︎
  113. Rowe v National Australia Bank Ltd [2025] SASC 50, [37] (B Doyle J) (‘Rowe‘). ↩︎
  114. Ibid. ↩︎
  115. Ibid. ↩︎
  116. Hanna v Flinders University [2025] SASC 6, [68] (Hughes J). ↩︎
  117. Ibid. ↩︎
  118. Lakaev v McConkey [2024] TASSC 35, [55] (Blow CJ) (‘Lakaev‘); De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (1996) 187 CLR 640. ↩︎
  119. Lakaev (n 118) (Blow CJ). ↩︎
  120. Ibid [56]. ↩︎
  121. Ibid [57]. ↩︎
  122. Ibid [54]. ↩︎
  123. DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19, [39] (Mossop J). ↩︎
  124. Ibid [43] (Mossop J). ↩︎
  125. Nash v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2023] WASCA 75, [9] (Quinlan CJ). ↩︎
  126. Ibid. ↩︎
  127. Ibid [19]. ↩︎

OBITER

Criminal Law and Torts

Links

Copyright Disclaimer

Contact