Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Valu 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 →

Valu v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Court
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Decided
2025-01-31
AI tool
ChatGPT
Outcome
Referral to Legal Services Commissioner
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 3.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 4.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 5.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 5.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 6.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 6.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Murray v Luton [2001] FCA 1245'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists; Court staff spent time unsuccessfully searching. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Mackinlay v MIMA [2002] FCA 953'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists; Court staff expended time attempting to locate it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Bavinton v MIMA [2017] FCA 712'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Gonzalez v MIBP [2018] FCA 211'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Seng v MIAC [2013] FCA 1279'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Kahawita v MIEA [1993] FCA 870'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'MIAC v Thiyagarajah [2016] FCA 19'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists; Court noted time spent searching for purported authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Heath v MIMA [2001] FCA 700'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v AAT [2004] FCA 1241'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'MIMA v Ameer [2004] FCA 276'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Woods v MIMA [2001] FCA 294'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'MIAC v Wu [2015] FCA 632'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Drummond v MIMA [2008] FCA 1774'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Walters v MIBP [2016] FCA 953'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Lao v MIMA [2002] FCA 1234'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Alfaro v MIBP [2016] FCA 1156'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions cited 'Wai v MIBP [2016] FCA 1157'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 1.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists in the decision. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Para 2.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.

Details

AI UseCounsel used ChatGPT to generate a summary of cases for a submission, which included fictitious Federal Court decisions and invented quotes from a Tribunal ruling. He inserted this output into the brief without verifying the sources. Counsel later admitted this under affidavit, citing time pressure, health issues, and unfamiliarity with AI's risks. He noted that guidance from the NSW Supreme Court was only published after the filing.Hallucination DetailsThe 25 October 2024 submission cited at least 16 completely fabricated decisions (e.g. Murray v Luton [2001] FCA 1245, Bavinton v MIMA [2017] FCA 712) and included supposed excerpts from the AAT’s ruling that did not appear in the actual decision. The Court and Minister’s counsel were unable to verify any of the cited cases or quotes.Ruling/SanctionJudge Skaros ordered referral to the OLSC under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2014, noting breaches of rules 19.1 and 22.5 of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules. The Court accepted Counsel’s apology and health-related mitigation but found that the conduct fell short of professional standards and posed systemic risks given increasing AI use in legal practice.Key Judicial ReasoningWhile acknowledging that Counsel corrected the record and showed contrition, the Court found that the damage—including wasted judicial resources and delay to proceedings—had already occurred. The ex parte email submitting corrected materials, without notifying opposing counsel, further compounded the breach. Given the public interest in safeguarding the integrity of litigation amidst growing AI integration, referral to the OLSC was deemed necessary, even without naming Counsel in the judgment.

Sanction teardown · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Australia · 2025-01-31

Valu v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

What happened

In Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Australia, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 3.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.
  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 4.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.
  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 5.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.
  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 5.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.
  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 6.1 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.
  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 6.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Murray v Luton [2001] FCA 1245'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists; Court staff spent time unsuccessfully searching.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Mackinlay v MIMA [2002] FCA 953'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists; Court staff expended time attempting to locate it.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Bavinton v MIMA [2017] FCA 712'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Gonzalez v MIBP [2018] FCA 211'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Seng v MIAC [2013] FCA 1279'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Kahawita v MIEA [1993] FCA 870'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'MIAC v Thiyagarajah [2016] FCA 19'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists; Court noted time spent searching for purported authority.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Heath v MIMA [2001] FCA 700'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v AAT [2004] FCA 1241'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'MIMA v Ameer [2004] FCA 276'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Woods v MIMA [2001] FCA 294'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'MIAC v Wu [2015] FCA 632'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Drummond v MIMA [2008] FCA 1774'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Walters v MIBP [2016] FCA 953'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Lao v MIMA [2002] FCA 1234'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Alfaro v MIBP [2016] FCA 1156'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions cited 'Wai v MIBP [2016] FCA 1157'; Minister and Court confirmed no such decision exists.
  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 1.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists in the decision.
  • False Quotes (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Para 2.2 of applicant's submissions contained an alleged quote from the Tribunal’s 18 June 2020 decision; Minister and Court confirmed no such passage exists.

Which AI tool

ChatGPT. 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

Referral to Legal Services Commissioner

Additional detail

AI UseCounsel used ChatGPT to generate a summary of cases for a submission, which included fictitious Federal Court decisions and invented quotes from a Tribunal ruling. He inserted this output into the brief without verifying the sources. Counsel later admitted this under affidavit, citing time pressure, health issues, and unfamiliarity with AI's risks. He noted that guidance from the NSW Supreme Court was only published after the filing.Hallucination DetailsThe 25 October 2024 submission cited at least 16 completely fabricated decisions (e.g. Murray v Luton [2001] FCA 1245, Bavinton v MIMA [2017] FCA 712) and included supposed excerpts from the AAT’s ruling that did not appear in the actual decision. The Court and Minister’s counsel were unable to verify any of the cited cases or quotes.Ruling/SanctionJudge Skaros ordered referral to the OLSC under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2014, noting breaches of rules 19.1 and 22.5 of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules. The Court accepted Counsel’s apology and health-related mitigation but found that the conduct fell short of professional standards and posed systemic risks given increasing AI use in legal practice.Key Judicial ReasoningWhile acknowledging that Counsel corrected the record and showed contrition, the Court found that the damage—including wasted judicial resources and delay to proceedings—had already occurred. The ex parte email submitting corrected materials, without notifying opposing counsel, further compounded the breach. Given the public interest in safeguarding the integrity of litigation amidst growing AI integration, referral to the OLSC was deemed necessary, even without naming Counsel in the judgment.

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/430/Valu_v._Minister_for_Immigration_and_Multicultural_Affairs_Australia_31_January_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/430/Valu_v._Minister_for_Immigration_and_Multicultural_Affairs_Australia_31_January_2025.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