Nikolic & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor
SC Victoria · May 23, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Supreme Court of Victoria identified three fabricated or misattributed legal authorities in the plaintiffs' submissions, which the Court attributed to AI-generated research. The Court did not issue a specific sanction for the hallucinations themselves but awarded indemnity costs to the respondents, noting the plaintiffs' persistent reliance on baseless arguments and non-existent case law.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs' reliance on non-existent authorities and their failure to verify citations, despite registry requests, demonstrated a lack of merit. The Court concluded that the applications were manifestly hopeless, justifying an award of indemnity costs to the respondents to avoid further protracted litigation and taxation disputes.
- Why it matters now
- Victoria Supreme Court treated three AI-fabricated authorities from pro-se plaintiffs as non-existent; no sanction but credibility destroyed.
Why this matter is tracked
In a costs determination following the dismissal of leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Victoria addressed the plaintiffs' reliance on three non-existent or misattributed legal authorities. The Court identified that the plaintiffs cited 'DZY v State of Victoria [2020] VSC 613' and 'Melbourne City Investments Pty Limited v Treasury Wine Estates Limited (No 5) [2017] VSC 216', which do not exist, and misattributed a costs proposition to 'R v Smith (1983) 1 VR 665', which is actually a report of 'Karenlee Nominees Pty Ltd v Gollin & Co Ltd'. The Court concluded these citations were likely AI-generated. While the Court did not impose a formal sanction for the hallucinations, it awarded indemnity costs against the plaintiffs due to the manifest hopelessness of their applications.
Victoria Supreme Court treated three AI-fabricated authorities from pro-se plaintiffs as non-existent; no sanction but credibility destroyed.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Court identified citations as likely AI-generated.
Costs determination following the dismissal of applications for leave to appeal.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on 'R v Smith (1983) 1 VR 665, 668' for a costs proposition; the Court found that citation was misattributed—the report at that citation is Karenlee Nominees Pty Ltd v Gollin & Co Ltd [1983] 1 VR 657—not the cited R v Smith.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on 'DZY v State of Victoria [2020] VSC 613', which the Court could not find and treated as a probable AI-generated, non-existent authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Melbourne City Investments Pty Limited v Treasury Wine Estates Limited (No 5) [2017] VSC 216', a decision the Court could not locate and concluded did not appear to exist.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nikolic & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor?
- The Supreme Court of Victoria identified three fabricated or misattributed legal authorities in the plaintiffs' submissions, which the Court attributed to AI-generated research. The Court did not issue a specific sanction for the hallucinations themselves but awarded indemnity costs to the respondents, noting the plaintiffs' persistent reliance on baseless arguments and non-existent case law.
- Why does Nikolic & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor matter for legal AI risk?
- Victoria Supreme Court treated three AI-fabricated authorities from pro-se plaintiffs as non-existent; no sanction but credibility destroyed.
- What does the public record establish about Nikolic & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor?
- 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 Nikolic & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor 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.