Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Abudahou v Metro Finance Pty Ltd on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Abudahou v Metro Finance Pty Ltd

Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Australia
Decided
2026-08-05
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
—
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant relied on a non-existent provision 's 41(7)(a)' of the Bankruptcy Act as the basis to set aside the bankruptcy notice; court held the provision does not exist. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited a non-existent court rule 'rule 2.02(4)' of the Bankruptcy Rules in submissions; court identified the reference as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submissions relied upon numerous authorities which the court found could not be located or did not stand for the propositions asserted. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant relied on real cases (e.g. Kuwait Airways; Penfolds) in support of promissory-note arguments, but the court found those authorities did not support the claimed legal principles. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Applicant created and tendered a 'Privately Registered Bonded Promissory Note' (16 July 2024) as full settlement; court described promissory-note claims as 'organised pseudo-legal commercial arguments'.

Sanction teardown · Federal Court, Australia · 2026-08-05

Abudahou v Metro Finance Pty Ltd

What happened

In Federal Court, Australia, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Legal Norm)
    Applicant relied on a non-existent provision 's 41(7)(a)' of the Bankruptcy Act as the basis to set aside the bankruptcy notice; court held the provision does not exist.
  • Fabricated (Legal Norm)
    Applicant cited a non-existent court rule 'rule 2.02(4)' of the Bankruptcy Rules in submissions; court identified the reference as erroneous.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Submissions relied upon numerous authorities which the court found could not be located or did not stand for the propositions asserted.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Applicant relied on real cases (e.g. Kuwait Airways; Penfolds) in support of promissory-note arguments, but the court found those authorities did not support the claimed legal principles.
  • Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Applicant created and tendered a 'Privately Registered Bonded Promissory Note' (16 July 2024) as full settlement; court described promissory-note claims as 'organised pseudo-legal commercial arguments'.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Not specified in source record.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2983/Abudahou_v_Metro_Finance_Pty_Ltd_2026_FedCFamC2G_1512_5_August_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2983/Abudahou_v_Metro_Finance_Pty_Ltd_2026_FedCFamC2G_1512_5_August_2026.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template