Jenson & Lockridge (No 2)
Federal Circuit and Family Court · Mar 19, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay 1,540 AUD in costs. The judge explicitly rejected arguments generated by AI, noting that the tool produced 'hallucinations' by attributing non-existent reasoning to the primary judge and obscuring the appellant's actual grounds of appeal.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that the appellant's reliance on AI was contrary to the fair and orderly conduct of the appellate process. The judge determined that the AI-generated content lacked forensic utility, misled the Court by attributing non-existent reasoning to the primary judge, and failed to comply with procedural rules regarding the presentation of grounds of appeal.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI to draft appellate submissions, specifically regarding the fabrication of judicial reasoning and the obfuscation of legitimate legal grounds, leading to summary dismissal and adverse costs.
Why this matter is tracked
The appellant, a pro se litigant, used an unidentified AI tool to draft her Summary of Argument and oral submissions in a family law property appeal. The Court found that the AI amalgamated disparate legal principles, resulting in repetitive and uncontextualised phrases. Furthermore, the AI attributed reasoning to the primary judge that did not exist in the original judgment, which the Court characterized as 'hallucinations.' The appellant also used AI to advance complaints that were either contrary to her trial position or had been abandoned. Consequently, the Court rejected these grounds for lacking forensic utility and merit. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of 1,540 AUD.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI to draft appellate submissions, specifically regarding the fabrication of judicial reasoning and the obfuscation of legitimate legal grounds, leading to summary dismissal and adverse costs.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The appellant disclosed the use of a professional version of AI.
Appellate review of final property orders from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | AI amalgamated disparate legal principles into the appellant's Summary of Argument and oral submissions, producing repetitive and uncontextualised appellate phrases relied on at hearing.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | AI-generated or AI-influenced complaints advanced on appeal were contrary to the appellant's case at trial or had been abandoned, obscuring effective grounds of appeal.
- Misrepresented: Other | AI attributed reasoning to the primary judge that did not appear in the reasons; the Court described these as 'hallucinations' and rejected grounds relying on them.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jenson & Lockridge (No 2)?
- The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay 1,540 AUD in costs. The judge explicitly rejected arguments generated by AI, noting that the tool produced 'hallucinations' by attributing non-existent reasoning to the primary judge and obscuring the appellant's actual grounds of appeal.
- Why does Jenson & Lockridge (No 2) matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI to draft appellate submissions, specifically regarding the fabrication of judicial reasoning and the obfuscation of legitimate legal grounds, leading to summary dismissal and adverse costs.
- What does the public record establish about Jenson & Lockridge (No 2)?
- 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 Jenson & Lockridge (No 2) 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.