Jenson & Lockridge (No 2)
Federal Circuit and Family Court · Mar 19, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Circuit and Family Court
- Record ID
- jenson-lockridge-no-2-2026-03-19
- Observed outcome
- Appeal dismissed; Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence dismissed; Adverse costs order of 1,540 AUD issued against the appellant.
- Known monetary consequence
- A$1,540
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Appellate
- Monetary
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- A$1,540
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of final property orders from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
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 appellant disclosed the use of a professional version of AI.
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
- Implement verification protocols to ensure all cited judicial reasoning exists in the source record.
- Require disclosure of AI usage in drafting legal submissions to ensure compliance with court rules.
- Review appellate filings for repetitive or uncontextualised legal phrases that may indicate AI-generated content.