AI hallucination cases in Australia
Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)
[2026] FCA 64
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Court of Australia |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth |
| Date | 9 February 2026 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Order for security for costs |
| Citation | [2026] FCA 64 |
Summary from the trackers
Charlotin database
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on authorities produced or cited that did not support the propositions for which they were cited; Court noted earlier discussion of this issue in JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) [2025] FCA 976.
Court AI rules
Sources
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0)
- Judgment copy cited by the Charlotin database
Related decisions
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Commonwealth · Court AI practice notes