Kaur v RMIT
SC Victoria (CA) · Nov 11, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- SC Victoria (CA)
- Record ID
- kaur-v-rmit-2024-11-11
- Observed outcome
- The application for leave to appeal was refused as totally without merit.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court of Appeal identified that the applicant's written submissions contained fabricated case citations, likely generated by an LLM. The judge explicitly omitted these non-existent citations from the court's reasons to prevent the further dissemination of hallucinated legal authority.
The judge determined that the application for leave to appeal was totally without merit because it sought to re-litigate factual findings rather than raising questions of law. Regarding the AI-generated content, the judge reasoned that omitting the fabricated citations from the judgment was necessary to avoid contributing to the problem of LLMs inventing case law.
Appellate courts now silently strip fake citations from reasons — the record memorializes the failure anyway.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- LLM AI (e.g., ChatGPT)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) from a decision of the trial division, which had dismissed an appeal from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
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 judge noted the documents appeared to be drafted with an LLM such as ChatGPT.
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 mandatory verification protocols for all case citations in filings, regardless of the drafting tool used.
- Review all AI-generated legal research outputs against primary source databases to ensure the existence and accuracy of cited authorities.
- Monitor court records for judicial commentary regarding the use of generative AI in submissions.