AI hallucination cases in Australia
Dey v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)
[2026] FedCFamC2G 1799
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth |
| Date | 14 September 2026 |
| Who used AI | Lawyer |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | Professional sanction |
| Outcome | Personal costs order against the practitioner. A public reprimand is not recorded in the judgment text checked on 10 Oct 2026. |
| Citation | [2026] FedCFamC2G 1799 |
Summary from the trackers
Charlotin database
The lawyer admitted using generative AI to prepare judicial review submissions and a costs submission. The Court found that six authorities in the judicial review submissions and five authorities in the costs submissions were hallucinated, while other cited authorities did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The Court itself identified the problem and had to fact-check the submissions. It held that filing unverified or hallucinated authorities breached the lawyer's duty to th
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 · Commonwealth · Court AI practice notes