AI hallucination cases in Australia
Heywood v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2026] QIRC 261
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Queensland IRC |
| Jurisdiction | Queensland |
| Date | 24 August 2026 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Admonishment |
| Citation | [2026] QIRC 261 |
Summary from the trackers
Charlotin database
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's submissions contained multiple references to cases that either do not exist or were incorrectly cited; the Commission found these references likely resulted from AI use and required accuracy in future filings. || Fabricated: Case Law | A specific corrupted/incorrect citation in the submissions appeared as 'AI Rubber' in footnotes instead of the correct 'A1 Rubber'. The Commission noted the anomaly as an example of inaccurate references.
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 · Queensland · Court AI practice notes