HomeCasesGeha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT

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

Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT

ACT SC · Apr 21, 2026

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the authority 'Checked Nominees Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1986] 4 ACLC 196' does not exist and was generated by the applicant's use of generative AI. Outcome: Leave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff..

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Leave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Leave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff. in ACT SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Leave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff. in ACT SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtACT SC

Jurisdictioninternational

Circuit4th Circuit

DateApr 21, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeLeave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Leave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff.

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the authority 'Checked Nominees Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1986] 4 ACLC 196' does not exist and was generated by the applicant's use of generative AI.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the authority 'Re Unique Building Services Pty Ltd [2012] ACTSC 104' does not exist and was generated by the applicant's use of generative AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT?: Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the authority 'Checked Nominees Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1986] 4 ACLC 196' does not exist and was generated by the applicant's use of generative AI. Outcome: Leave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff..
Why does Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Leave to represent the corporation refused; interlocutory application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff. in ACT SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT?: 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 Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT 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.

בדש נ' אוחנהMagistrate's Court, Tel Aviv-Jaffa · Jul 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit UnionW.D. Washington · Jul 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Jovanovic v Hobart City Council [2026] TASSC 39TASSC · Jul 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty LtdFamily Court · Jul 1, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Susan Elizabeth Duve v. William Charles Forrest, et al.S.D. Texas · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Nady v. Al Sadi, 2026 ONSC 3760Ontario SCJ · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

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

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the authority 'Checked Nominees Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1986] 4 ACLC 196' does not exist and was generated by the applicant's use of generative AI.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the authority 'Re Unique Building Services Pty Ltd [2012] ACTSC 104' does not exist and was generated by the applicant's use of generative AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT?

Why does Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT?

Which source supports this Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT 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.