HomeCasesMark Khoury v Nira Kooij

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij

Supreme Court of Queensland · Sep 3, 2025

AustraliaEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a case name (redacted) purportedly reported at [2017] QSC 105 and quoted from it; the Court could not find the cited name or the quoted passage. Outcome: Application dismissed.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Application dismissed; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Pro-se fabricated-citation dismissals signal courts everywhere are spotting AI hallucinations; cite the case when counseling clients.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se fabricated-citation dismissals signal courts everywhere are spotting AI hallucinations; cite the case when counseling clients.

Record details

CourtSupreme Court of Queensland

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateSep 3, 2025

AI toolimplied

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeApplication dismissed

Known amount$1

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

implied is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Application dismissed

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a case name (redacted) purportedly reported at [2017] QSC 105 and quoted from it; the Court could not find the cited name or the quoted passage.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka v His Eminence Petar [2008] HCA 42 and relied on paragraph [123] for a proposition; the case exists but paragraph [123] does not support the point advanced.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant referred to two further cases (redacted) which the Court found do not exist when searched.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant cited 's 54(1)(a) of the Succession Act 1981'—the section exists but there is no subparagraph (a); the statutory citation is incorrect.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a case name (redacted) purportedly reported at [2017] QSC 105 and quoted from it; the Court could not find the cited name or the quoted passage. Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why does Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij matter for legal AI risk?: Pro-se fabricated-citation dismissals signal courts everywhere are spotting AI hallucinations; cite the case when counseling clients.
What does the public record establish about Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij?: 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 Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij 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.

Susan Elizabeth Duve v. William Charles Forrest, et al.S.D. Texas · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2026pro se + fake citations Jamal Berry v. Early Warning ServicesE.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2026pro se + fake citations Edward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026pro se + fake citations Michael Platt v. Volunteers of America Ohio & IndianaS.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2026pro se + fake citations Farag v. Persante et alM.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2026pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se fabricated-citation dismissals signal courts everywhere are spotting AI hallucinations; cite the case when counseling clients.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a case name (redacted) purportedly reported at [2017] QSC 105 and quoted from it; the Court could not find the cited name or the quoted passage.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka v His Eminence Petar [2008] HCA 42 and relied on paragraph [123] for a proposition; the case exists but paragraph [123] does not support the point advanced.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant referred to two further cases (redacted) which the Court found do not exist when searched.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant cited 's 54(1)(a) of the Succession Act 1981'—the section exists but there is no subparagraph (a); the statutory citation is incorrect.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij?

Why does Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij matter for legal AI risk?

Pro-se fabricated-citation dismissals signal courts everywhere are spotting AI hallucinations; cite the case when counseling clients.

What does the public record establish about Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij?

Which source supports this Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij 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.