Lakaev v McConkey
Supreme Court of Tasmania · Jul 12, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court of Tasmania
- Record ID
- lakaev-v-mcconkey-2024-07-12
- Observed outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Appeals die on fabricated citations even when formal sanctions are withheld from unrepresented parties.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucination
- Fabricated_citation
- Misrepresented_authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Application by the respondent to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution, granted by the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
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 identified the use of artificial intelligence in generating submissions.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.