Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)
Federal Court of Australia · Feb 9, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Court of Australia
- Record ID
- jorgensen-v-jml-rose-pty-ltd-security-for-costs-2026-02-09
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- A$30,000
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Repeat AI-citation offenders invite security-for-costs orders; flag prior hallucination history when opposing pro-se litigants.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bankruptcy
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Artificial Intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- A$30,000
- Procedural posture
- Interlocutory application for security for costs in pending appeals.
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 Court refers to the appellant's use of 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).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.