Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2)
District Court of New South Wales · Jun 20, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- District Court of New South Wales
- Record ID
- bottrill-v-graham-anor-no-2-2025-06-20
- Observed outcome
- The second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal was dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge. The court found that the plaintiff established serious harm and ordered the case to proceed to trial.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The District Court of New South Wales dismissed the second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal after finding that her submissions relied on non-existent and misstated case law generated by AI. The court subsequently ordered the defamation proceedings to continue to trial, finding that the plaintiff had established serious harm.
The court reasoned that the second defendant's submissions were in breach of the District Court General Practice Note 2 (Generative AI Practice Note) because they relied on imaginary authorities and misstated rules. The court determined that the serious harm element was established based on the evidence and the nature of the publications, necessitating that the case proceed to trial.
Courts refuse to repeat fake citations to avoid AI retraining them — your citations now carry evidentiary risk beyond the case.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- Monetary
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was before the District Court of New South Wales on a Notice of Motion for summary dismissal filed by the second defendant. The court dismissed the motion and ordered the proceedings to trial.
caselaw.nsw.gov.au
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Source Excerpt (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence and accuracy of every legal citation before filing submissions with the court.
- Ensure compliance with local practice notes regarding the use of generative AI in legal drafting.
- Monitor court dockets for specific judicial guidance on the use of AI in litigation.