Egan v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] FCA 1104
Federal Court of Australia · Aug 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Court of Australia
- Record ID
- egan-v-commonwealth-of-australia-2026-fca-1104-2026-08-11
- Observed outcome
- Court noted and rejected AI-generated erroneous quotations and citations, ignored the applicant's unsolicited post-hearing email, allowed summary judgment for the Respondent; no professional sanction or monetary penalty imposed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
False Quotes: Case Law | Applicant relied on a purported quoted passage attributed to Taylor v Johnson that does not exist; Court checked reports and found the passage absent. Outcome: Court noted and rejected AI-generated erroneous quotations and citations, ignored the applicant's unsolicited post-hearing email, allowed summary judgment for the Respondent; no professional sanction or monetary penalty imposed.. The applicant (self-represented) admitted using generative AI in preparing supplementary submissions and filed a notice of corrections; the Commonwealth identified non-existent authorities and erroneous quotations. The Court found a prominent quoted passage attributed to Taylor v Johnson did not exist, identified other incorrect citations (including Alati v Kruger) and disregarded AI-generated material that was not relied upon. The judge emphasised the duty to verify authorities, struck certain AI-generated passages from consideration (and ignored a gratuitous post-hearing email), but imposed no professional or financial sanction.
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Court noted and rejected AI-generated erroneous quotations and citations, ignored the applicant's unsolicited post-hearing email, allowed summary judgment for the Respondent; no professional sanction or monetary penalty imposed.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Court noted and rejected AI-generated erroneous quotations and citations, ignored the applicant's unsolicited post-hearing email, allowed summary judgment for the Respondent; no professional sanction or monetary penalty imposed. in Federal Court of Australia. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Court noted and rejected AI-generated erroneous quotations and citations, ignored the applicant's unsolicited post-hearing email, allowed summary judgment for the Respondent; no professional sanction or monetary penalty imposed.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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 document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.