AI hallucination cases in Australia
Lakaev v McConkey
[2024] TASSC 35
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of Tasmania |
| Jurisdiction | Tasmania |
| Date | 12 July 2024 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution |
| Citation | [2024] TASSC 35 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
The self‑represented litigant (Appellant) referred in their submissions to the High Court’s decision in De L v Director‑General, NSW Department of Community Services (1996) 187 CLR 640 (‘ De L’) ([55]). The Appellant’s commentary on De L suggested that it involved an appeal challenging the veracity of a witness’s evidence. However, De L concerned international child abduction law and was unrelated to issues of false evidence. The Appellant relied on a case that appears to not exist, alth
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Court AI rules
Sources
- OBITER AI Hallucination Cases: Australia
- AustLII
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0)
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Tasmania · Court AI practice notes