Goodchild v State of Queensland
Queensland IRC · Feb 13, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Queensland IRC
- Record ID
- goodchild-v-state-of-queensland-2025-02-13
- Observed outcome
- The application for reinstatement was dismissed; the Commission gave no weight to the Applicant's fabricated legal submissions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission disregarded legal authorities cited by a pro se litigant after the Applicant admitted they were fabricated and sourced via general internet searches. The Commission gave the submissions no weight, noting the incident as a cautionary lesson regarding the risks of using general search engines or artificial intelligence for legal document preparation.
The Commission determined that because the cited authorities could not be located and the Applicant admitted they were sourced from general internet searches, they were unreliable and entitled to no weight in the assessment of the Applicant's explanation for the delay.
Queensland Commission frames AI-fabricated authorities as a 'salutary lesson' about search-engine reliance; submissions given zero weight.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Internet searches
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Application for reinstatement dismissed by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission following a preliminary jurisdictional objection regarding a late filing.
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 Applicant admitted sourcing cases through general internet searches.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to "Internet searches" output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.