AI hallucination cases in Australia
Chu v Darmali
[2025] FCA 1626
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Court of Australia |
| Jurisdiction | Not recorded |
| Date | 8 December 2025 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Not recorded |
| Citation | [2025] FCA 1626 |
Summary from the trackers
Charlotin database
Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Respondent cited 'Bassola v Bassola (No 2) [1985] FamCA 33; (1985) FLC 91-629' and relied on it for the proposition that honest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. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Multiple other inapt and inaccurate references in the respondent's submissions produced by a generative AI program, leading to unreliable authorities throughout the su
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Court AI rules
Sources
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0)
- Judgment copy cited by the Charlotin database
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Court AI practice notes