O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VBAB 33
Victoria BAB · May 7, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Building Appeals Board of Victoria found that pro se litigants relied on generative AI to produce submissions containing fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented practice notes. The Board admonished the applicants for these failures and considered the overall conduct in awarding costs against them.
- Why the court cared
- The Board reasoned that the applicants' reliance on AI-generated material led to clearly wrong citations and misrepresentations of Board practice notes and case law, which the Board identified by comparing the submissions against actual records.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment; Taken into account for adverse Cost Order in Victoria BAB, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
In a costs application before the Building Appeals Board of Victoria, pro se applicants submitted legal arguments supported by multiple fabricated citations and misrepresented authorities. The Board determined that the applicants had utilized generative AI to produce these submissions, resulting in the citation of non-existent Board members, misquoted case law, and non-existent practice note provisions. The Board explicitly identified these errors as the product of unverified AI use. While the Board did not impose a specific monetary sanction for the AI misuse itself, the conduct was noted in the context of the proceedings, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $10,100.00.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment; Taken into account for adverse Cost Order in Victoria BAB, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Board stated the applicants relied on artificial intelligence.
Costs application following a principal determination in a building dispute.
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.
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Applicants relied on a purported statement of BAB Practice Note 9A that in fact the practice note does not contain; the Board found the practice note was misrepresented.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicants cited a non-existent 'Senior Member Houghton' as having decided Davison v Molinaro (No 4); the Board found there is no BAB member named Houghton and the attribution was incorrect.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Applicants quoted paragraph 33 (and paragraph 31) of Davison v Molinaro (No 4) in support of a costs principle; the Board found those paragraphs do not contain the claimed statements (a false quote/mischaracterisation of that decision).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicants asserted Kuek v Devflan established a rule about assessing party-party recoveries at roughly two-thirds of solicitor-client costs; the Board found Kuek does not establish that principle.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VBAB 33?
- The Building Appeals Board of Victoria found that pro se litigants relied on generative AI to produce submissions containing fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented practice notes. The Board admonished the applicants for these failures and considered the overall conduct in awarding costs against them.
- Why does O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VBAB 33 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment; Taken into account for adverse Cost Order in Victoria BAB, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VBAB 33?
- 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 O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VBAB 33 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.