AI hallucination cases in Australia
Jenson & Lockridge (No 2)
[2026] FedCFamC1A 44
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Circuit and Family Court |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth |
| Date | 19 March 2026 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Adverse Costs Order; Appeal dismissed |
| Citation | [2026] FedCFamC1A 44 |
Summary from the trackers
Charlotin database
Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | AI amalgamated disparate legal principles into the appellant's Summary of Argument and oral submissions, producing repetitive and uncontextualised appellate phrases relied on at hearing. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | AI-generated or AI-influenced complaints advanced on appeal were contrary to the appellant's case at trial or had been abandoned, obscuring effective grounds of appeal. || Misrepresented: Other | AI attributed reasoning to the primary j
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