//AU

AU — Country Profile

Australia

72TOTAL

72OFFICIAL SOURCES

6TOPIC AREAS

Policy / Guidance1

Court Case71

AI GovernanceGenerative AIJudicial & Law EnforcementLiability & AccountabilityRisk ManagementTransparency & Explainability

Court Case✓ Official

Jenson & Lockridge (No 2)

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | AI amalgamated disparate legal principles into the appellant's Summary of Argument and oral submissions, producing repetitive and uncontextualised appellate phrases relied on at hearing. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Appeal dismissed.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No$ 1540 AUD

19 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Edmonds v Barrington Winstanley Group

Lawyer appeared before the SC New South Wales. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicants' written submissions cited a non-existent High Court authority; Court noted the citation did not correspond to any such case and directed it to a different case. Outcome: Warning.

Court: SC New South WalesParty: Lawyer

⚠ No

18 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

GSA v. Department of Communities

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the SC Western Australia. False Quotes: Legal Norm | Appellant read an AI-generated quotation he attributed to s 14(1)(b) Criminal Appeals Act; judge found the quotation inaccurate, called AI 'deceptive', and required source disclosure.

Court: SC Western AustraliaParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

16 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Nicole Levey-Wilson v The Trustee for Attivita Group Unit Trust

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Fair Work Commission. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant's submission referenced s.341(1)(c)(ii); Commissioner found the reference appeared AI-generated and nonsensical in context. Outcome: Application dismissed..

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

10 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Oberoi v. Douglas

Lawyer appeared before the CA Victoria. Fabricated: Case Law | 7 fabricated authorities Outcome: Bar referral.

Court: CA VictoriaParty: Lawyer

⚠ No

5 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

ELG20 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Pro Se Litigant used ChatGPT; OpenAI in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's written submissions cited numerous fictitious cases; Minister identified the fictitious citations and the Court declined to reproduce them. Outcome: Admonishment.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: ChatGPT; OpenAI

⚠ No

5 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Rinaldi v Department of Justice (Right to Information and Privacy)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Queensland CAT. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Lutvey v Department of Community Safety'; Tribunal found the case does not appear to exist and noted AI use in submissions. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Court: Queensland CATParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

16 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

RYJZ and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the ART Australia. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Cheung v FCT [2021] AATA 3851'; Tribunal and Commissioner found no record of that case and treated it as a fabricated citation, noting possible AI use.

Court: ART AustraliaParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

12 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Morcos v Bayside Council

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the IRC New South Wales. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's filed list of authorities contained multiple 'hallucinated' (fabricated) cases; the Commission observed the list appeared to include AI-generated fabricated cases and questioned the applicant's candour.

Court: IRC New South WalesParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

10 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Federal Court of Australia. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs. Outcome: Order for security for costs.

Court: Federal Court of AustraliaParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

9 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Application by Pennisi

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Fair Work Commission. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on an authority cited as Iwasaki v Hays [2019] FWCFB 1761; the Commission found that this citation does not exist and declined to treat it as supporting exceptional circumstances.

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

5 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Lawyer used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | A case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court found it was AI-generated and refused to reproduce it. Counsel admitted the citations came from an AI-generated Google summary. Outcome: Bar Referral.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: LawyerTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

3 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Broadwater Tower

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Queensland BCCMC. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited s 227 of the Act as a provision about 'abuse of power and retaliatory conduct'; adjudicator found s 227 actually pertains to the meaning of 'dispute' and flagged the citation as incorrect. Outcome: Warning.

Court: Queensland BCCMCParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

2 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the NSW CAT. Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).

Court: NSW CATParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

30 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Riley v. Nuvei Australia Merchant Services

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Fair Work Commission. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited several Fair Work Commission decisions as authority for the proposition that WorkCover certificates lack probative value; Commission found those cited decisions do not exist.

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

19 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Lutfi v. Tucker

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's written submissions included a cited authority that did not exist; applicant admitted AI prepared the submissions and the court treated it as a fabricated case citation. Outcome: Warning.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

16 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Smith and Commissioner of Taxation

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Administrative Review Tribunal. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'AAT Case [2011] AATA 206' as supporting reconstructed records; Tribunal noted the actual decision at that citation is Barclay and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 206 and it does not support the Applicant's proposition (misrepresentation/misapplication).

Court: Administrative Review TribunalParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

12 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Mrs Sandra Archer v GTC Contracting

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Fair Work Commission. Fabricated: Case Law

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

24 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Tekla & Tekla

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Dogan & Dogan' (said to be Family Court of Australia, 2004); court noted it does not exist and omitted it from reasons.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

23 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

In the matter of Bayfoyle

Lawyer appeared before the SC New South Wales. Fabricated: Case Law | Submissions and outline relied on several non-existent case authorities likely generated by AI; an email falsely attributed one non-existent authority to a Court reference; court noted failure to verify. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order (AI misuse one of the factors); Declined to Refer to the Bar.

Court: SC New South WalesParty: Lawyer

⚠ No$ 1

23 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Leytcorp v Mimbim Enterprises

Lawyer appeared before the Trade Marks Office. Fabricated: Case Law | Removal Applicant's written submissions referenced several non-existent case authorities and attendant non-existent propositions of law; delegate characterised these references as AI hallucinations arising from the representative's materials.

Court: Trade Marks OfficeParty: Lawyer

⚠ No

22 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Rathi & Rathi

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

22 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Lawyer used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's written submissions cited multiple authorities that, on request, could not be produced because they do not exist; Minister alerted the Court to the non-existence. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: LawyerTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

22 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Pakuza v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Queensland IRC. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's attachment to Form 4 listed authorities that the Regulator and chambers could not locate; the Commission noted the authorities could not be found.

Court: Queensland IRCParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

16 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Chu v Darmali

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the FCA. Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Respondent cited 'Bassola v Bassola (No 2) [1985] FamCA 33; (1985) FLC 91-629' and relied on it for the proposition that honest filing is not abuse; the court treated this as a mischaracterisation of Re Bassola and noted it was overturned on appeal.

Court: FCAParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

8 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Carrington v TAFE Queensland

Lawyer appeared before the Queensland IRC. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Coleman v State of Queensland [2021] QIRC 243'; the court found that [2021] QIRC 243 corresponds to Chan & Ors v State of Queensland and could not locate the asserted authority as cited.

Court: Queensland IRCParty: Lawyer

⚠ No

5 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

A'Vard v Mornington Peninsula SC

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Victorian CAT. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant (self-represented) used AI to cite 'Healy v Boroondara CC'; Tribunal proceeded on the basis the AI citation was incorrect and applied the established Healy principles instead.

Court: Victorian CATParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

2 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Mertz & Mertz (No 3)

Lawyer used Unidentified in proceedings before the Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Originally filed Summary of Argument (17 Oct 2025) contained non-existent, inaccurate and misleading authorities generated with the assistance of AI; Court described these as hallucinations and accepted they had not been verified. Outcome: Costs Order; Bar Referrals.

Court: Family CourtParty: LawyerTool: Unidentified

⚠ No$ 10000 AUD

28 November 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Re Walker

Lawyer used CourtAid; ChatGPT in proceedings before the SC Victoria. Misrepresented: Case Law | Two other authorities in the submissions were inaccurately cited or misnamed; the solicitor provided corrected names/copies for some but one corrected authority was irrelevant to the passing-over issue. Outcome: Reprimand.

Court: SC VictoriaParty: LawyerTool: CourtAid; ChatGPT

⚠ No

24 November 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Kim v. Insurance Australia

Judge used Bard in proceedings before the ACT CAT. Fabricated: Case Law | Allianz v Motor Accident Injuries Commission [2022] ACTSC 45 Outcome: Decision was removed from ACAT website.

Court: ACT CATParty: JudgeTool: Bard

⚠ No

18 November 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Wills v Wilson

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Victorian CAT. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicants cited a case allegedly called 'Reynolds' with a citation that actually corresponds to a different case; Tribunal concluded this was part of an AI hallucination/misattribution.

Court: Victorian CATParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

14 November 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

Pro Se Litigant used ChatGPT in proceedings before the Queensland IRC. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.

Court: Queensland IRCParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: ChatGPT

⚠ No

5 November 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Huang v. Champion Homes Sales

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the NSW. Fabricated: Case Law | Amended Grounds contained non-existent or incorrect case citations produced by generative AI; the Appeal Panel noted these authorities were inaccurate and unverified.

Court: NSWParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

30 October 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Sky Gardens

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Queensland BCCMC. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited multiple authorities; adjudicator found several of the cited cases do not exist and at least one 'does not appear to exist at all'. Outcome: Adverse costs order for "misconceived and without substance" application.

Court: Queensland BCCMCParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No$ 2000 AUD

29 October 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Vivek Singha v. Metal Manufactures

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Fair Work Commission. Fabricated: Case Law | Commission and Costs Applicant identified that the citation 'Corey v Metro Trains [2013] FWC 7893' does not exist; court concluded it was likely AI-generated.

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

8 October 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Hugo v Affinity Education Group Pty Ltd

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's affidavits and submissions included citations to authorities that 'do not appear to exist'; court noted this suggested use of generative AI and required respondents to incur expense to verify the authorities. Outcome: Warning.

Court: Family CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

18 September 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Howe v. NSW Department of Education

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the NSW Industrial Relations Commission. Fabricated: Case Law | A cited authority could not be located and was treated by the Respondent as entirely fictional; the Commission redacted the citation to avoid propagation.

Court: NSW Industrial Relations CommissionParty: Pro Se Litigant

⚠ No

17 September 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Helmold & Mariya (No 2)

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's Notice of Appeal and Summary of Argument contained multiple case citations that the Court could not locate and concluded were fictitious; the Court recorded the citations could not be found and were not authoritative. Outcome: Warning.

Court: Family CourtParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

12 September 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij

Pro Se Litigant used implied in proceedings before the Supreme Court of Queensland. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a case name (redacted) purportedly reported at [2017] QSC 105 and quoted from it; the Court could not find the cited name or the quoted passage. Outcome: Application dismissed.

Court: Supreme Court of QueenslandParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: implied

⚠ No$ 1

3 September 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available

Court Case✓ Official

Gribble v Essential Energy

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the NSW D.C.. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a wholly imaginary judgment purportedly authored by the presiding judge; the court found the judgment did not exist and treated it as a Gen AI hallucination, redacting the reference. Outcome: Plaintiff ordered to exclude all Gen AI material.

Court: NSW D.C.Party: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified

⚠ No

29 August 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability

↗ Link available