HomeCasesHealth Care Complaints Commission v Campbell

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell

NSW CAT · Jan 30, 2026

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrative

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).

Why the court cared: Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Submission relied on 'Health Care Complaints Commission v Mitchell [2012] NSWCATOD 151 at [98]', which the Tribunal found did not appear to exist and the cited paragraph did not exist in the real Mitchell decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Submission cited 'Psychology Council of NSW v X [2020] NSWCATOD 156' which does not exist; Tribunal noted the citation corresponds to HCCC v Rakheja [2020] NSWCATOD 156 and there is no such 'Psychology Council of NSW v X' authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Health Care Complaints Commission v Istephan [2012] NSWDT 1 at [8]', a decision that does not exist; Tribunal noted the actual Istephan decision is [2017] NSWCATOD 15 and another relevant 2012 citation is Phung (No 1) [2012] NSWDT 1.
Why it matters now: AI hallucinates both case names and paragraph numbers; verify pinpoint cites, not just the case reference.

Why this matter is tracked

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).

Operational lesson

AI hallucinates both case names and paragraph numbers; verify pinpoint cites, not just the case reference.

Record details

CourtNSW CAT

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJan 30, 2026

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

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

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).
Misrepresented: Case Law | Submission relied on 'Health Care Complaints Commission v Mitchell [2012] NSWCATOD 151 at [98]', which the Tribunal found did not appear to exist and the cited paragraph did not exist in the real Mitchell decision.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Submission cited 'Psychology Council of NSW v X [2020] NSWCATOD 156' which does not exist; Tribunal noted the citation corresponds to HCCC v Rakheja [2020] NSWCATOD 156 and there is no such 'Psychology Council of NSW v X' authority.
Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Health Care Complaints Commission v Istephan [2012] NSWDT 1 at [8]', a decision that does not exist; Tribunal noted the actual Istephan decision is [2017] NSWCATOD 15 and another relevant 2012 citation is Phung (No 1) [2012] NSWDT 1.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell?: Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).
Why does Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell matter for legal AI risk?: AI hallucinates both case names and paragraph numbers; verify pinpoint cites, not just the case reference.
What does the public record establish about Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell 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.

14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)M. D... A. c. Département de l'IsèreTA Grenoble · Jun 4, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)QQQJ and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)Administrative Review Tribunal · May 22, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ontario Securities Commission v AlliCapital Markets Tribunal · May 20, 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

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).

Misrepresented: Case Law | Submission relied on 'Health Care Complaints Commission v Mitchell [2012] NSWCATOD 151 at [98]', which the Tribunal found did not appear to exist and the cited paragraph did not exist in the real Mitchell decision.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Submission cited 'Psychology Council of NSW v X [2020] NSWCATOD 156' which does not exist; Tribunal noted the citation corresponds to HCCC v Rakheja [2020] NSWCATOD 156 and there is no such 'Psychology Council of NSW v X' authority.

Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Health Care Complaints Commission v Istephan [2012] NSWDT 1 at [8]', a decision that does not exist; Tribunal noted the actual Istephan decision is [2017] NSWCATOD 15 and another relevant 2012 citation is Phung (No 1) [2012] NSWDT 1.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell?

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).

Why does Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell matter for legal AI risk?

AI hallucinates both case names and paragraph numbers; verify pinpoint cites, not just the case reference.

What does the public record establish about Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell?

Which source supports this Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell 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.