Dey v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · Sep 14, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Six authorities cited in the judicial review submissions were admitted to be hallucinated after the Court questioned whether they existed. The Court treated their filing as improper conduct and a breach of the lawyer's duty to the Court. Outcome: Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders.. The lawyer admitted using generative AI to prepare judicial review submissions and a costs submission. The Court found that six authorities in the judicial review submissions and five authorities in the costs submissions were hallucinated, while other cited authorities did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The Court itself identified the problem and had to fact-check the submissions. It held that filing unverified or hallucinated authorities breached the lawyer's duty to the Court, caused delay and additional costs, and compromised the administration of justice. The Court ordered the lawyer to pay AUD 9,600 in costs, declined to refer him to the regulator, and publicly identified him in the judgment.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and appellate and records Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and appellate with Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders. in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Six authorities cited in the judicial review submissions were admitted to be hallucinated after the Court questioned whether they existed. The Court treated their filing as improper conduct and a breach of the lawyer's duty to the Court. Outcome: Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders.. The lawyer admitted using generative AI to prepare judicial review submissions and a costs submission. The Court found that six authorities in the judicial review submissions and five authorities in the costs submissions were hallucinated, while other cited authorities did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The Court itself identified the problem and had to fact-check the submissions. It held that filing unverified or hallucinated authorities breached the lawyer's duty to the Court, caused delay and additional costs, and compromised the administration of justice. The Court ordered the lawyer to pay AUD 9,600 in costs, declined to refer him to the regulator, and publicly identified him in the judgment.
This matter connects fake citations and appellate with Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders. in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Six authorities cited in the judicial review submissions were admitted to be hallucinated after the Court questioned whether they existed. The Court treated their filing as improper conduct and a breach of the lawyer's duty to the Court.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Five authorities cited in the First Costs Submission were admitted to be hallucinated after the Court sought clarification. The submission was withdrawn, and the Court found that the AI-generated citations caused inconvenience, delay, and additional costs.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Dey v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Six authorities cited in the judicial review submissions were admitted to be hallucinated after the Court questioned whether they existed. The Court treated their filing as improper conduct and a breach of the lawyer's duty to the Court. Outcome: Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders.. The lawyer admitted using generative AI to prepare judicial review submissions and a costs submission. The Court found that six authorities in the judicial review submissions and five authorities in the costs submissions were hallucinated, while other cited authorities did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The Court itself identified the problem and had to fact-check the submissions. It held that filing unverified or hallucinated authorities breached the lawyer's duty to the Court, caused delay and additional costs, and compromised the administration of justice. The Court ordered the lawyer to pay AUD 9,600 in costs, declined to refer him to the regulator, and publicly identified him in the judgment.
- Why does Dey v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and appellate with Personal costs order of AUD 9,600 against the lawyer; no referral to the regulator; lawyer publicly named and reprimanded through the reasons and orders. in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Dey v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)?
- 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 Dey v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) 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.