AI hallucination cases in Australia
ZBDD AND Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)
[2026] ARTA 553
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth |
| Date | 8 April 2026 |
| Who used AI | Witness |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Admonishment |
| Citation | [2026] ARTA 553 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
The Tribunal noted that in the Witness Statement, the Applicant cites and relies upon a Commissioner’s Ruling that appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence ([110]). The Tribunal found that JK’s Witness Statement is entirely inaccurate as to what that ruling is about and says, and has therefore put those submissions aside ([110]). In the annexure, the Applicant relied upon 70 cases, none of which include a proper citation; the Outline contains even more cases (including repeated
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