Howe v Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education

OBITER

The litigant in person’s (Applicant’s) alleged use of generative AI in the preparation of submissions (see [26]–[28]). The third case cited could not be located by the Commission ([26]). The Respondent speculated, based on a similar process of searching for the cases, that the Applicant’s submissions were prepared using generative artificial intelligence ([27]). In cross examination, the Applicant denied creating the submissions using generative AI ([28]).

Charlotin database

Fabricated: Case Law | A cited authority could not be located and was treated by the Respondent as entirely fictional; the Commission redacted the citation to avoid propagation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant relied on Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 975 but was said to have mischaracterised its outcome (Nulty did not result in an extension of time). || Misrepresented: Case Law | A second Fair Work Commission decision was cited with an incorrect title; the Commission locate

The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.