HomeCasesFinch v The Heat Group

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.

Corpus matter record

Finch v The Heat Group

Family Court · Feb 27, 2024

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycivil rights

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant provided 'IOOF Holdings Ltd v TPT Patrol Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 115' as an authority restraining a firm; court found no such case under that name and the citation [2019] FCAFC 115 corresponds to Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corp, which does not concern a restraint application. Applicant (unrepresented) provided a list of 24 authorities claimed to show instances where MinterEllison had been restrained. Court's associate and judge found the list contained fabricated or misdescribed citations; judge characterised the provision of those authorities as an egregious instance of misleading the court but did not impose professional sanctions.…

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Pro-se filers presenting 24 fabricated authorities still collapse the application; treat any uncited list as suspect on intake.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se filers presenting 24 fabricated authorities still collapse the application; treat any uncited list as suspect on intake.

Record details

CourtFamily Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateFeb 27, 2024

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant provided 'IOOF Holdings Ltd v TPT Patrol Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 115' as an authority restraining a firm; court found no such case under that name and the citation [2019] FCAFC 115 corresponds to Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corp, which does not concern a restraint application.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Quinert v National Australia Bank Limited (2019)' as a restraint authority; court found no record of any case by that name or citation and treated it as fabricated.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant relied on Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall [2018] FCA 1422 and described it as a case restraining MinterEllison; court found the case exists but does not concern a restraint of solicitors and was misdescribed by the applicant.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Finch v The Heat Group?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant provided 'IOOF Holdings Ltd v TPT Patrol Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 115' as an authority restraining a firm; court found no such case under that name and the citation [2019] FCAFC 115 corresponds to Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corp, which does not concern a restraint application. Applicant (unrepresented) provided a list of 24 authorities claimed to show instances where MinterEllison had been restrained. Court's associate and judge found the list contained fabricated or misdescribed citations; judge characterised the provision of those authorities as an egregious instance of misleading the court but did not impose professional sanctions.…
Why does Finch v The Heat Group matter for legal AI risk?: Pro-se filers presenting 24 fabricated authorities still collapse the application; treat any uncited list as suspect on intake.
What does the public record establish about Finch v The Heat Group?: 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 Finch v The Heat Group 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.

Yuri Petrini v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, et al.S.D. Mississippi · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Patrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Trauger v. Columbia County District Attorney's Office et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (2)D. New Mexico · May 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Zena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. California · Apr 14, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se filers presenting 24 fabricated authorities still collapse the application; treat any uncited list as suspect on intake.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Quinert v National Australia Bank Limited (2019)' as a restraint authority; court found no record of any case by that name or citation and treated it as fabricated.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant relied on Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall [2018] FCA 1422 and described it as a case restraining MinterEllison; court found the case exists but does not concern a restraint of solicitors and was misdescribed by the applicant.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Finch v The Heat Group?

Why does Finch v The Heat Group matter for legal AI risk?

Pro-se filers presenting 24 fabricated authorities still collapse the application; treat any uncited list as suspect on intake.

What does the public record establish about Finch v The Heat Group?

Which source supports this Finch v The Heat Group 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.