O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VBAB 33
Victoria BAB · May 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Victoria BAB
- Record ID
- o-bryan-anor-v-strod60-pty-ltd-no-2-2026-vbab-33-2026-05-07
- Observed outcome
- The Board admonished the applicants for the use of AI-generated misinformation and ordered them to pay the respondent's costs of $10,100.00.
- Known monetary consequence
- A$10,100
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- A$10,100
- Procedural posture
- Costs application following a principal determination in a building dispute.
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 Board stated the applicants relied on artificial intelligence.
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.