Garan Holdings Pty Ltd v Stonepoint Capital Management Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)
NSW SC · Jun 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- NSW SC
- Record ID
- garan-holdings-pty-ltd-v-stonepoint-capital-management-pty-ltd-in-liq-no-2-2026-06-05
- Observed outcome
- The plaintiffs succeeded in their claims for breach of trust, misleading conduct, and breach of fiduciary duty; the court granted equitable compensation and tracing relief.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court found that the defendant, Mr. Hunt, used AI to generate fabricated evidence regarding lending policies and included hallucinations of legal authorities in his written submissions. The court explicitly rejected these AI-generated materials as unreliable and found that they did not assist the defendant's case.
The court rejected the defendant's reliance on documents purportedly evidencing lending policies, noting they were created post-litigation and were 'ostensibly created by Artificial Intelligence.' Regarding legal submissions, the court found the defendant's use of AI resulted in hallucinations about legal authorities that went beyond the pleaded case, rendering the submissions unreliable.
This case illustrates the judicial rejection of AI-generated evidence and legal citations in a pro se context. It highlights the risk of 'ex post' fabrication and the court's ability to identify and disregard unreliable AI-assisted submissions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_evidence
- Hallucinated_legal_authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Final judgment following a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Commercial List.
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 court identified the use of Artificial Intelligence for submissions and evidence creation.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement verification protocols for all documents and legal authorities submitted by pro se litigants.
- Establish internal review processes to detect potential AI-generated fabrications in evidence and legal filings.
- Train legal staff to identify hallmarks of AI-hallucinated case law and non-existent legal authorities.