AI hallucination cases in Australia
O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2026] VBAB 33
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Victoria BAB |
| Jurisdiction | Victoria |
| Date | 7 May 2026 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Admonishment; Taken into account for adverse Cost Order |
| Citation | [2026] VBAB 33 |
Summary from the trackers
Charlotin database
Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Applicants relied on a purported statement of BAB Practice Note 9A that in fact the practice note does not contain; the Board found the practice note was misrepresented. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicants cited a non-existent 'Senior Member Houghton' as having decided Davison v Molinaro (No 4); the Board found there is no BAB member named Houghton and the attribution was incorrect. || False Quotes: Case Law | Applicants quoted paragraph 33 (and paragraph 31) of
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Court AI rules
Sources
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Victoria · Court AI practice notes