AI hallucination cases in Australia
Goodchild v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
[2025] QIRC 46
Also recorded as Goodchild v State of Queensland.
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) |
| Jurisdiction | Queensland |
| Date | 13 February 2025 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | "Internet searches" |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Relevant submissions ignored |
| Citation | [2025] QIRC 46 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
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]). 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.’ O’Neill IC noted (at [39]): ‘[t]his appears to be a salutary lesson for litigants in the dangers of relyi
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Charlotin database
"The Commission accepts the Applicant's explanation. Given that there appears to be significant doubt over whether the authorities cited by the Applicant represent actual decisions from the Fair Work Commission, I will give the authorities cited by the Applicant no weight in determining whether she has provided an explanation for the delay. This appears to be a salutary lesson for litigants in the dangers of relying on general search engines on the internet or artificial intelligence when prepar
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