AI hallucination cases in Australia
Mertz & Mertz (No 3)
[2025] FedCFamC1A 222
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) — Appellate Division |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth |
| Date | 28 November 2025 |
| Who used AI | Lawyer |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Costs Order; Bar Referrals |
| Citation | [2025] FedCFamC1A 222 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
The Appellant’s solicitor drafted, with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI program not identified), the Appellant’s originally filed Summary of Argument and List of Authorities, resulting in the Court being provided with inaccurate and misleading references to case law ‘hallucinations’. Aldridge, Carew and Behrens JJ (at [12]) cited Helmold & Mariya (No 2) (2025) FLC 94-272 ( ‘Helmold & Mariya‘), in a case where a self-represented litigant had used AI in preparation of a Summary o
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 · Commonwealth · Court AI practice notes