Tekla & Tekla
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
Federal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 23, 2025
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.
Family appellate courts itemize each fabricated authority by name in reasons; mischaracterizations are published record.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
This record comes from Australia. See AI in Australian courts: practice directions and recorded cases for counts across the corpus and the court guidance on AI.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.