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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2)
District Court of New South Wales · Jun 20, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | "All of the judgments and rules referred to in the submissions of 21 May 2025 were misstated, non-existent, or both" Outcome: The second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge.. "When the parties came before the court on 22 May 2025, there had been little time for the plaintiff, the first defendant and the court to examine the second defendant’s written submissions served late on the night before. It was nevertheless immediately apparent that the second defendant sought to rely upon authority and court rules which were not merely misstated but, in some circumstances, imaginary.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is The second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Courts refuse to repeat fake citations to avoid AI retraining them — your citations now carry evidentiary risk beyond the case.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | "All of the judgments and rules referred to in the submissions of 21 May 2025 were misstated, non-existent, or both" Outcome: The second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge.. "When the parties came before the court on 22 May 2025, there had been little time for the plaintiff, the first defendant and the court to examine the second defendant’s written submissions served late on the night before. It was nevertheless immediately apparent that the second defendant sought to rely upon authority and court rules which were not merely misstated but, in some circumstances, imaginary. I am satisfied that all of the judgments and rules referred to in the submissions of 21 May 2025 were misstated, non-existent, or both, and that Gen AI had been used to prepare these submissions.An example was the citation of a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales described as “Wu v Wilks” (I will not provide the citation given in full, as there is a risk of it being picked up as genuine by other Gen AI: Luck v Secretary, Services Australia [2025] FCAFC 26 at [14]). There is no decision with this name, either in the Supreme Court of New South Wales or in any other jurisdictions. The caselaw citation given for “Wu v Wilks” belonged to a judgment on wholly unrelated material and the principles of law for which it was cited. All of the citations suffered similar problems.I drew these issues to the attention of the second defendant and enquired whether she had used Gen AI in the preparation of her submissions and, if so, whether she was aware of the Practice Note. She acknowledged that she had done so but said this was because she had very little time to provide submissions in reply and was deeply distressed by these proceedings"
Operational lesson
Courts refuse to repeat fake citations to avoid AI retraining them — your citations now carry evidentiary risk beyond the case.
Record details
CourtDistrict Court of New South Wales
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 20, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
The second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | "All of the judgments and rules referred to in the submissions of 21 May 2025 were misstated, non-existent, or both"
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | "All of the judgments and rules referred to in the submissions of 21 May 2025 were misstated, non-existent, or both" Outcome: The second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge.. "When the parties came before the court on 22 May 2025, there had been little time for the plaintiff, the first defendant and the court to examine the second defendant’s written submissions served late on the night before. It was nevertheless immediately apparent that the second defendant sought to rely upon authority and court rules which were not merely misstated but, in some circumstances, imaginary.…
- Why does Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2) matter for legal AI risk?
- Courts refuse to repeat fake citations to avoid AI retraining them — your citations now carry evidentiary risk beyond the case.
- What does the public record establish about Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2)?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2) summary?
- The recorded source is caselaw.nsw.gov.au. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.