AI hallucination cases in Australia
Rathi & Rathi
[2025] FedCFamC1A 238
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) — Appellate Division |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth |
| Date | 22 December 2025 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Not recorded |
| Citation | [2025] FedCFamC1A 238 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
Williams J rejected the litigant in person’s (Appellant’s) contention that s 97(3) or s 43(c) of the Act supports their submission, as there is no s 43(c) ([40]). The reliance on those two sections of the Act in the submissions clearly demonstrates that the Appellant relied on generative artificial intelligence (AI) ([40]). As the appeal wholly lacked merit, it was dismissed by Williams J ([73]).
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