Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Tekla & Tekla
Federal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 23, 2025
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Dogan & Dogan' (said to be Family Court of Australia, 2004); court noted it does not exist and omitted it from reasons.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Dogan & Dogan' (said to be Family Court of Australia, 2004); court noted it does not exist and omitted it from reasons. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on 'Duncan & Duncan' with a 2016 citation which does not exist; court identified it as a fabricated authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on 'Tindal & Tindal' with a 2007 citation which does not exist; court identified it as fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a proposition to Penfold v Penfold that the case does not contain (claimed that costs orders should not impose undue hardship); court noted incorrect citation and misstatement of authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant misstated the House v The King test, describing legal unreasonableness as a test of 'fairness'; court identified this as an incorrect statement of the precedent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Jurchenko & Foster [2014] FamCAFC 127 with an incorrect citation and relied on it to support family violence despite that case rejecting the claims; court noted the incorrect citation and misapplication.
- Why it matters now
- Family appellate courts itemize each fabricated authority by name in reasons; mischaracterizations are published record.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Dogan & Dogan' (said to be Family Court of Australia, 2004); court noted it does not exist and omitted it from reasons.
Operational lesson
Family appellate courts itemize each fabricated authority by name in reasons; mischaracterizations are published record.
Record details
CourtFederal Circuit and Family Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 23, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Dogan & Dogan' (said to be Family Court of Australia, 2004); court noted it does not exist and omitted it from reasons.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on 'Duncan & Duncan' with a 2016 citation which does not exist; court identified it as a fabricated authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on 'Tindal & Tindal' with a 2007 citation which does not exist; court identified it as fabricated.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a proposition to Penfold v Penfold that the case does not contain (claimed that costs orders should not impose undue hardship); court noted incorrect citation and misstatement of authority.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant misstated the House v The King test, describing legal unreasonableness as a test of 'fairness'; court identified this as an incorrect statement of the precedent.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Jurchenko & Foster [2014] FamCAFC 127 with an incorrect citation and relied on it to support family violence despite that case rejecting the claims; court noted the incorrect citation and misapplication.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tekla & Tekla?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Dogan & Dogan' (said to be Family Court of Australia, 2004); court noted it does not exist and omitted it from reasons.
- Why does Tekla & Tekla matter for legal AI risk?
- Family appellate courts itemize each fabricated authority by name in reasons; mischaracterizations are published record.
- What does the public record establish about Tekla & Tekla?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Tekla & Tekla 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.