Lakaev v McConkey
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
Supreme Court of Tasmania · Jul 12, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The Court identified that the appellant's submissions included AI-generated hallucinations, specifically mischaracterizing a High Court precedent and citing a non-existent case, which the Court highlighted while determining that the appeal lacked merit and caused undue delay.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that the appellant failed to progress the appeal, specifically by not filing a list of documents for the appeal book, and that the appellant's submissions lacked prospects of success. The Court explicitly noted the appellant's reliance on hallucinated case law as part of the context of the submissions provided.
- Why it matters now
- Appeals die on fabricated citations even when formal sanctions are withheld from unrepresented parties.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant mischaracterized De L v Director-General as a case about false testimony leading to reversal; the Court clarified it concerned international child abduction and not false evidence. Outcome: Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant's submissions included a misleading reference to a High Court case, De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services, misrepresenting its relevance to false testimony, which was not the case's subject matter, and a fabricated reference to Hewitt v Omari [2015] NSWCA 175, which does not exist. The appeal was dismissed, considering the lack of progress and potential prejudice to the respondent.
Appeals die on fabricated citations even when formal sanctions are withheld from unrepresented parties.
Record details
AI tool read from the primary court record (2026-10-25): open the court record.
What the record establishes about AI use
The Court identified the use of artificial intelligence in generating submissions.
Application by the respondent to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution, granted by the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant mischaracterized De L v Director-General as a case about false testimony leading to reversal; the Court clarified it concerned international child abduction and not false evidence.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Hewitt v Omari [2015] NSWCA 175'; the Court found no such case and noted the citation corresponds to the unrelated Palermo Seafood Pty Ltd v Lunapas [2015] NSWCA 175.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lakaev v McConkey?
- The Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The Court identified that the appellant's submissions included AI-generated hallucinations, specifically mischaracterizing a High Court precedent and citing a non-existent case, which the Court highlighted while determining that the appeal lacked merit and caused undue delay.
- Why does Lakaev v McConkey matter for legal AI risk?
- Appeals die on fabricated citations even when formal sanctions are withheld from unrepresented parties.
- What does the public record establish about Lakaev v McConkey?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Lakaev v McConkey 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.
This record comes from Australia. See AI in Australian courts: practice directions and recorded cases for counts across the corpus and the court guidance on AI.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.