AI hallucination cases in Australia
Smith and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)
[2026] ARTA 25
Also recorded as Smith and Commissioner of Taxation.
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth |
| Date | 12 January 2026 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Not recorded |
| Citation | [2026] ARTA 25 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
The litigant in person (Applicant) cites cases in support of his submissions that, if they exist at all, do not support the principles he asserts (see [82]–[84]). J Dunne said (at [83]): ‘[t]he Tribunal is not certain that this has occurred in the present case, but comments that if artificial intelligence is used as a research tool by litigants before the Tribunal, each case identified by artificial intelligence needs to be located on public websites (such as www.austlii.edu.au
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Charlotin database
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'AAT Case [2011] AATA 206' as supporting reconstructed records; Tribunal noted the actual decision at that citation is Barclay and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 206 and it does not support the Applicant's proposition (misrepresentation/misapplication). || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a Tribunal decision 'Re Jowett v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] AATA 433' that does not exist; Tribunal noted the citation was a hallucination and the actual d
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)
- Judgment copy cited by the Charlotin database
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Commonwealth · Court AI practice notes