AI hallucination cases in Australia
LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia
[2025] QCAT 96
Also recorded as LYJ v. Occupational Therapy Board of Australia.
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) |
| Jurisdiction | Queensland |
| Date | 26 March 2025 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | ChatGPT |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | No sanction; Fabrication noted; Warning issued regarding AI use |
| Citation | [2025] QCAT 96 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
The self‑represented litigant (Applicant) made submissions in support of a stay application generated using ChatGPT, which contained non‑existent case citations relied upon as authorities in support of the arguments (see [18]–[19], [21]–[22]). J Dann stated (at [23]): ‘Queensland Courts have issued Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non‑Lawyers
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Charlotin database
AI UseThe applicant cited Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2007] QCA 283 in support of a key submission. The Tribunal was unable to locate such a case. It queried ChatGPT, which returned a detailed but entirely fictitious account of a case that does not exist. The Tribunal attached Queensland’s AI usage guidelines to its reasons and emphasized that the responsibility for accuracy lies with the party submitting the material.Ruling/SanctionThe fabricated case was disregarded. The Tribuna
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Court AI rules
Sources
- OBITER AI Hallucination Cases: Australia
- sclqld.org.au
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0)
- naturalandartificiallaw.com
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Queensland · Court AI practice notes