AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 11, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 9, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesFarooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

Supreme Court (NSW) · Dec 9, 2025

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the plaintiff's summons as misconceived and lacking prospects of success. The court explicitly identified that the plaintiff's AI-assisted submissions contained fabricated case law and misrepresented legal authorities, leading to an adverse costs order against the plaintiff.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | AI-assisted submissions included citations and quoted documents that do not exist; court observed non-existent cases/documents in the materials. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Other cases cited in the AI-assisted submissions did not stand for the propositions for which they were relied on; authorities were misattributed or misrepresented.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Supreme Court (NSW), with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Why this matter is tracked

In Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWSC 1486, the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed a pro se litigant's summons seeking judicial review of a security license revocation. The court found the proceedings misconceived, as the plaintiff was bound by a prior, unchallenged decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The court noted that the plaintiff's written submissions, prepared with the assistance of AI, suffered from significant defects, including the citation of non-existent cases and documents, and the misrepresentation of existing authorities. Consequently, the court dismissed the summons and ordered the plaintiff to file submissions regarding the Commissioner's request for an adverse costs order, noting that costs typically follow the event.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Supreme Court (NSW), with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Record details

CourtSupreme Court (NSW)
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 9, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSummons dismissed with an adverse costs order pending final submission on costs.
Known amountA$0
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The judgment notes the plaintiff used AI but does not name the specific tool.

Procedural posture

Motion to dismiss summons under r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and/or s 34 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunals Act 2013 (NSW).

Correction behavior

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | AI-assisted submissions included citations and quoted documents that do not exist; court observed non-existent cases/documents in the materials.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Other cases cited in the AI-assisted submissions did not stand for the propositions for which they were relied on; authorities were misattributed or misrepresented.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force?
The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the plaintiff's summons as misconceived and lacking prospects of success. The court explicitly identified that the plaintiff's AI-assisted submissions contained fabricated case law and misrepresented legal authorities, leading to an adverse costs order against the plaintiff.
Why does Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Supreme Court (NSW), with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
What does the public record establish about Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force?
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 Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force 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.

CCDP v. Canada AG & Frantz Saint-JeanFederal Court (Canada) · Jul 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedDamilola Obembe v. Droisys, Inc.OCAHO · Jul 29, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citationsChilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citationsMoosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citationsSeeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026pro se + fake citations