AI hallucination cases in Australia
Gribble v ESSENTIAL ENERGY trading as Essential Energy
[2025] NSWDC 344
Also recorded as Gribble v Essential Energy.
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | District Court of New South Wales |
| Jurisdiction | New South Wales |
| Date | 29 August 2025 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Plaintiff ordered to exclude all Gen AI material |
| Citation | [2025] NSWDC 344 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
The self‑represented litigant’s (Plaintiff’s) pleadings show clear evidence of using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) ([33]). The Plaintiff conceded that they had used GenAI ([38]). Gibson DCJ expressed concern about how courts should handle such AI‑generated ‘hallucinations’ and self‑represented litigants (see [39]–[44]).
Charlotin database
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. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited another non‑genuine case name from a different court; the court concluded this reference also appeared to be fabricated by Gen AI and redacted it.
Court AI rules
Sources
- OBITER AI Hallucination Cases: Australia
- AustLII
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0)
- Judgment copy cited by the Charlotin database
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · New South Wales · Court AI practice notes