Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij
Supreme Court of Queensland · Sep 3, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court of Queensland
- Record ID
- mark-khoury-v-nira-kooij-2025-09-03
- Observed outcome
- Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay expert fees of $6,600 and mediator fees of $7,150.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the applicant's motion after finding he relied on fabricated case law and misrepresented legal norms, likely generated by an AI tool. The court explicitly redacted the false citations from its published opinion to prevent AI systems from indexing and propagating the hallucinations.
The court reasoned that the applicant's arguments were unsupported by law and likely derived from AI hallucinations. It determined that the applicant's insistence on a non-existent right to cost disclosure derailed court-ordered mediation, necessitating the dismissal of his application and the imposition of financial obligations for the respondent's costs and fees.
Pro-se fabricated-citation dismissals signal courts everywhere are spotting AI hallucinations; cite the case when counseling clients.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- generative AI chatbot
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- Application dismissed following a hearing on 25 July 2025, with further orders issued regarding the payment of expert and mediator fees.
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 assumed the applicant relied on an AI chatbot.
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.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.