AI hallucination cases in Australia
Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Wise and Wise Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor
[2025] QCAT 222
Also recorded as Department of Justice v Wise.
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) |
| Jurisdiction | Queensland |
| Date | 13 May 2025 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Warning |
| Citation | [2025] QCAT 222 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
The self‑represented litigants’ (Respondents’) use of false case citations and reliance on four non‑existent cases as authorities in submissions (see [52]–[55]).
Charlotin database
The second respondent, Carly Dakota Wise, a self-represented litigant, filed an application for the recusal of a tribunal member, alleging bias and procedural unfairness. The application was based on several grounds, including fabricated legal citations - despite Ms. Wise having been warned in interlocutory proceedings to check the authorities she relied on. The court cited the local Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers,
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Court AI rules
Sources
- OBITER AI Hallucination Cases: Australia
- sclqld.org.au
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0)
- Judgment copy cited by the Charlotin database
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Queensland · Court AI practice notes