Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science Australia
Administrative Review Tribunal · Jan 24, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant’s BBM SFIC contained citations to non-existent cases in paras 35–37, later withdrawn before hearing. Outcome: Fake references withdrawn before the hearing. "Nevertheless, due to that withdrawal being requested prior to the hearing, I have not considered those paragraphs, these reasons for decision do not take account of those paragraphs and I merely make some general comments below applicable to all parties that appear before the Tribunal.The use of Chat GPT is problematic for the Tribunal.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Fake references withdrawn before the hearing; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Tribunals cross-check every citation — withdrawing fakes before hearing avoids adverse inferences but not the warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant’s BBM SFIC contained citations to non-existent cases in paras 35–37, later withdrawn before hearing. Outcome: Fake references withdrawn before the hearing. "Nevertheless, due to that withdrawal being requested prior to the hearing, I have not considered those paragraphs, these reasons for decision do not take account of those paragraphs and I merely make some general comments below applicable to all parties that appear before the Tribunal.The use of Chat GPT is problematic for the Tribunal. It perhaps goes without saying that it is not acceptable for a party to attempt to mislead the Tribunal by citing case law that is non-existent or citing legal conclusions that do not follow, whether that attempt is deliberate or otherwise. All parties should be aware that the Tribunal checks and considers all cases and conclusions referred to in both parties’ submissions in any event. This matter would have inevitably been discovered, and adverse inferences may have been drawn. To ensure no such adverse inferences are drawn, parties are encouraged to use publicly available databases to search for case law and not to seek to rely on artificial intelligence."
Operational lesson
Tribunals cross-check every citation — withdrawing fakes before hearing avoids adverse inferences but not the warning.
Record details
CourtAdministrative Review Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 24, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeFake references withdrawn before the hearing
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Fake references withdrawn before the hearing
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant’s BBM SFIC contained citations to non-existent cases in paras 35–37, later withdrawn before hearing.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | IISA framed the test as requiring “new scientific or technical knowledge” and that the new knowledge be “based on principles of established science,” which the Tribunal corrected as not the statutory test.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | IISA asserted hypotheses must identify technical knowledge gaps with “causal relationships between technical variables…,” which the Tribunal said is not the statutory requirement.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | IISA stated that meeting observation and evaluation requires “analysis of numerical data using established statistical techniques,” which the Tribunal found is not required by the statute.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | IISA argued there is a legal requirement to keep documentation and contemporaneous records to satisfy s 355-25; Tribunal held no such statutory requirement exists (documentation may be expected but is not mandated).
- False Quotes: Doctrinal Work | Applicant attributed a sentence to the ManUp study that does not appear in the article; Tribunal verified the quote was not in the paper.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science Australia?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant’s BBM SFIC contained citations to non-existent cases in paras 35–37, later withdrawn before hearing. Outcome: Fake references withdrawn before the hearing. "Nevertheless, due to that withdrawal being requested prior to the hearing, I have not considered those paragraphs, these reasons for decision do not take account of those paragraphs and I merely make some general comments below applicable to all parties that appear before the Tribunal.The use of Chat GPT is problematic for the Tribunal.…
- Why does Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science Australia matter for legal AI risk?
- Tribunals cross-check every citation — withdrawing fakes before hearing avoids adverse inferences but not the warning.
- What does the public record establish about Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science Australia?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science Australia summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.