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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Chu v Darmali
FCA · Dec 8, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcy
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Respondent cited 'Bassola v Bassola (No 2) [1985] FamCA 33; (1985) FLC 91-629' and relied on it for the proposition that honest filing is not abuse; the court treated this as a mischaracterisation of Re Bassola and noted it was overturned on appeal.
- Why the court cared
- Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Respondent cited 'Bassola v Bassola (No 2) [1985] FamCA 33; (1985) FLC 91-629' and relied on it for the proposition that honest filing is not abuse; the court treated this as a mischaracterisation of Re Bassola and noted it was overturned on appeal. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Multiple other inapt and inaccurate references in the respondent's submissions produced by a generative AI program, leading to unreliable authorities throughout the submissions. || Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a family-law 'Gould' authority (purported citation used to argue 'honest belief in necessity' negates abuse) that the court could not locate or that was misapplied.
- Why it matters now
- Australian Federal Circuit is flagging generative-AI submissions filled with inapt authorities; expect courts to discount whole briefs.
Why this matter is tracked
Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Respondent cited 'Bassola v Bassola (No 2) [1985] FamCA 33; (1985) FLC 91-629' and relied on it for the proposition that honest filing is not abuse; the court treated this as a mischaracterisation of Re Bassola and noted it was overturned on appeal.
Operational lesson
Australian Federal Circuit is flagging generative-AI submissions filled with inapt authorities; expect courts to discount whole briefs.
Record details
CourtFCA
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 8, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Respondent cited 'Bassola v Bassola (No 2) [1985] FamCA 33; (1985) FLC 91-629' and relied on it for the proposition that honest filing is not abuse; the court treated this as a mischaracterisation of Re Bassola and noted it was overturned on appeal.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Multiple other inapt and inaccurate references in the respondent's submissions produced by a generative AI program, leading to unreliable authorities throughout the submissions.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a family-law 'Gould' authority (purported citation used to argue 'honest belief in necessity' negates abuse) that the court could not locate or that was misapplied.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Chu v Darmali?
- Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Respondent cited 'Bassola v Bassola (No 2) [1985] FamCA 33; (1985) FLC 91-629' and relied on it for the proposition that honest filing is not abuse; the court treated this as a mischaracterisation of Re Bassola and noted it was overturned on appeal.
- Why does Chu v Darmali matter for legal AI risk?
- Australian Federal Circuit is flagging generative-AI submissions filled with inapt authorities; expect courts to discount whole briefs.
- What does the public record establish about Chu v Darmali?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Chu v Darmali 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.