Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Goodchild v State of Queensland
Queensland IRC · Feb 13, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent Fair Work Commission decision to justify an extension of time; searches found no such case and Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court gave it no weight. Outcome: Relevant submissions ignored. "The Commission accepts the Applicant's explanation. Given that there appears to be significant doubt over whether the authorities cited by the Applicant represent actual decisions from the Fair Work Commission, I will give the authorities cited by the Applicant no weight in determining whether she has provided an explanation for the delay.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Relevant submissions ignored; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Queensland Commission frames AI-fabricated authorities as a 'salutary lesson' about search-engine reliance; submissions given zero weight.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent Fair Work Commission decision to justify an extension of time; searches found no such case and Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court gave it no weight. Outcome: Relevant submissions ignored. "The Commission accepts the Applicant's explanation. Given that there appears to be significant doubt over whether the authorities cited by the Applicant represent actual decisions from the Fair Work Commission, I will give the authorities cited by the Applicant no weight in determining whether she has provided an explanation for the delay. This appears to be a salutary lesson for litigants in the dangers of relying on general search engines on the internet or artificial intelligence when preparing legal documents."
Operational lesson
Queensland Commission frames AI-fabricated authorities as a 'salutary lesson' about search-engine reliance; submissions given zero weight.
Record details
CourtQueensland IRC
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 13, 2025
"I
AI tool"Internet searches"
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeRelevant submissions ignored
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
"Internet searches" is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Relevant submissions ignored
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent Fair Work Commission decision to justify an extension of time; searches found no such case and Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court gave it no weight.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent FWC case to support her position; the Commission could not locate it and the Applicant later acknowledged sourcing errors; given no weight.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a fabricated FWC authority; Commission's searches failed to identify any such decision; Applicant conceded citation issues; no weight given.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant referenced a non-existent FWC decision; court could not locate it and treated it as unreliable after Applicant's admission; no weight given.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant invoked a fabricated FWC matter; not found on legal databases or the FWC website; Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court disregarded it.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Goodchild v State of Queensland?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent Fair Work Commission decision to justify an extension of time; searches found no such case and Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court gave it no weight. Outcome: Relevant submissions ignored. "The Commission accepts the Applicant's explanation. Given that there appears to be significant doubt over whether the authorities cited by the Applicant represent actual decisions from the Fair Work Commission, I will give the authorities cited by the Applicant no weight in determining whether she has provided an explanation for the delay.…
- Why does Goodchild v State of Queensland matter for legal AI risk?
- Queensland Commission frames AI-fabricated authorities as a 'salutary lesson' about search-engine reliance; submissions given zero weight.
- What does the public record establish about Goodchild v State of Queensland?
- 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 Goodchild v State of Queensland 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.