Li v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2026] FCA 733
Federal Court · Jun 10, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Court
- Record ID
- li-v-nursing-and-midwifery-board-of-australia-2026-fca-733-2026-06-10
- Observed outcome
- Summary judgment was entered for the Respondents; the Applicant was ordered to pay costs of $14,000.
- Known monetary consequence
- A$14,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The Federal Court of Australia noted an allegation that the pro se Applicant submitted an AI-generated citation. The Court explicitly stated that this issue was immaterial to its decision, which rested entirely on the finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the Respondents, who were established under State law rather than Commonwealth law.
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Respondents' reply suggested one case cited by the Applicant was AI‑generated; Court noted it but found it immaterial to the outcome..
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a international proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- A$14,000
- Procedural posture
- The Respondents moved for summary judgment under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) on the grounds that the Court lacked jurisdiction and the proceeding had no reasonable prospect of success. The Court granted the motion.
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Check the cited authority, reporter reference, and pinpoint against the primary source before filing.
- Correct any unsupported citation promptly and preserve the verification record.
- Treat the listed consequence as case-specific rather than as a general rule about AI use.