Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-05Y0BLXGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell

NSW CAT · Jan 30, 2026

Jurisdiction
international
Court
NSW CAT
Record ID
health-care-complaints-commission-v-campbell-2026-01-30
Observed outcome
The Tribunal established multiple complaints of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, ordered the cancellation of the respondent's registration as a pharmacist, and prohibited the respondent from providing health services for three years.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Tribunal found that the respondent pharmacist likely used generative AI to draft submissions containing fabricated case law, non-existent pinpoint citations, and repealed statutory provisions. The Tribunal explicitly identified these errors as evidence of AI-generated content, noting the submissions were of limited utility due to these inaccuracies.

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Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).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

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Hallucinated_case_law
  • Hallucinated_pinpoint_citations
  • Outdated_statutory_authority
  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
Generative Artificial Intelligence
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Disciplinary hearing before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Occupational Division) resulting in the cancellation of the respondent's pharmacist registration.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

Tribunal accepted the Commission's submission that the practitioner employed Generative Artificial Intelligence.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.