AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesJorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)

Federal Court of Australia · Feb 9, 2026

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcyMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court ordered the appellant to provide $30,000 in security for costs. This decision was based on the appellant's failure to establish that the order would stultify his appeals, his lack of financial candor, and his history of using AI to generate fabricated or misrepresented legal authorities, which unnecessarily increased the respondent's litigation 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

The Federal Court of Australia granted an application for security for costs against a pro se appellant, Mr. Jorgensen, in his bankruptcy-related appeals. The Court found that the appellant had failed to provide a statement of affairs and had not been candid regarding his financial position. Crucially, the Court noted the appellant's continued, indiscriminate use of artificial intelligence to generate submissions containing non-existent authorities and misrepresentations, a practice previously identified by Wheatley J. The Court determined that this conduct increased litigation costs and supported the respondent's request for security. Consequently, the Court ordered the appellant to pay $30,000 into court within 28 days, failing which the appeals would be stayed.

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
AR
AI toolArtificial Intelligence (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Court granted the respondent's application, ordering the appellant to provide $30,000 in security for costs within 28 days, subject to a stay of proceedings for non-compliance.
Known amountA$30,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The Court refers to the appellant's use of artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Interlocutory application for security for costs in pending appeals.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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)?
The Court ordered the appellant to provide $30,000 in security for costs. This decision was based on the appellant's failure to establish that the order would stultify his appeals, his lack of financial candor, and his history of using AI to generate fabricated or misrepresented legal authorities, which unnecessarily increased the respondent's litigation 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.

JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3)Federal Court of Australia · Aug 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsNoella P. Turgeon v. FHLMCD. New Hampshire · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re Nicholia Cherry-CrocketteD. New Jersey (Bankruptcy) · May 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Herzel Hagigi v. Official ReceiverSupreme Court · Dec 28, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Gerou v. George, Whitten, and United StatesE.D. Wisconsin · Dec 18, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)D. Delaware (Bankruptcy) · Dec 12, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)