May v Costaras
NSW CA · Aug 8, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- NSW CA
- Record ID
- may-v-costaras-2025-08-08
- Observed outcome
- Appeal dismissed; respondent ordered to pay costs.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The NSW Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a property trust dispute. While no specific sanction was imposed for the respondent's use of generative AI, the Court formally noted the respondent's reliance on a hallucinated case citation and irrelevant legal authorities, emphasizing the need for judicial vigilance regarding AI-generated submissions.
The Court reasoned that the respondent's use of generative AI resulted in submissions that were largely unintelligible and included a non-existent case citation, which added unnecessary cost and complexity to the proceedings. The Court concluded that while AI may improve access to justice, it requires judicial vigilance and strict verification of all legal references to ensure the integrity of the administration of justice.
NSW Court of Appeal flagged the need for judicial vigilance — assume any pro-se authority list contains at least one hallucination.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Irrelevant_legal_authority
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Equity Division) to the New South Wales Court of Appeal.
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 respondent admitted to using an artificial intelligence program to prepare her 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
- Implement verification protocols for all case citations and legal authorities before filing, regardless of the research method used.
- Judicial officers should inquire whether generative AI was used in the preparation of materials when submissions appear unintelligible or contain suspicious citations.
- Ensure that all legal research, including that generated by AI, is cross-referenced against authoritative databases.