Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)
Federal Court of Australia · Feb 9, 2026
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcy
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs. Outcome: Order for security for costs.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on authorities produced or cited that did not support the propositions for which they were cited; Court noted earlier discussion of this issue in JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) [2025] FCA 976.
- Why it matters now
- Repeat AI-citation offenders invite security-for-costs orders; flag prior hallucination history when opposing pro-se litigants.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs. Outcome: Order for security for costs.
Operational lesson
Repeat AI-citation offenders invite security-for-costs orders; flag prior hallucination history when opposing pro-se litigants.
Record details
CourtFederal Court of Australia
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 9, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOrder for security for costs
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
Order for security for costs
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on authorities produced or cited that did not support the propositions for which they were cited; Court noted earlier discussion of this issue in JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) [2025] FCA 976.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs. Outcome: Order for security for costs.
- Why does Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) matter for legal AI risk?
- Repeat AI-citation offenders invite security-for-costs orders; flag prior hallucination history when opposing pro-se litigants.
- What does the public record establish about Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)?
- 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 Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) 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.