Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Applications by BGIS 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 →

Applications by BGIS Pty Ltd

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

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Legal Norm | BGIS included an extract of clause 4.1 of the Joinery Award that contained words not found in the actual award; the Commission said the extract appeared AI-generated and undermined BGIS's submissions on coverage. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | BGIS submitted an extract from clause 4.2 of the Building Award that did not reflect the award's terms; the Commission treated the error as AI-generated and said it made BGIS's submissions unreliable. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | BGIS relied on content it presented as clause 4.2 of the Miscellaneous Award which the Commission found was not what clause 4.2 provides and which BGIS had not analysed correctly.

Details

BGIS's written submissions contained apparent extracts from several modern awards (Joinery, Building and Miscellaneous) that did not reflect the actual award texts. The Commission concluded the extracts 'appear to have been generated by an artificial intelligence tool and not checked', which made BGIS's coverage submissions unreliable and unpersuasive. Because the incorrect extracts affected the award-coverage analysis and standing, the Commission dismissed the variation applications for three employees.

Sanction teardown · Fair Work Commission, Australia · 2026-05-08

Applications by BGIS Pty Ltd

What happened

In Fair Work Commission, 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)
    BGIS included an extract of clause 4.1 of the Joinery Award that contained words not found in the actual award; the Commission said the extract appeared AI-generated and undermined BGIS's submissions on coverage.
  • Fabricated (Legal Norm)
    BGIS submitted an extract from clause 4.2 of the Building Award that did not reflect the award's terms; the Commission treated the error as AI-generated and said it made BGIS's submissions unreliable.
  • Fabricated (Legal Norm)
    BGIS relied on content it presented as clause 4.2 of the Miscellaneous Award which the Commission found was not what clause 4.2 provides and which BGIS had not analysed correctly.

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.

Additional detail

BGIS's written submissions contained apparent extracts from several modern awards (Joinery, Building and Miscellaneous) that did not reflect the actual award texts. The Commission concluded the extracts 'appear to have been generated by an artificial intelligence tool and not checked', which made BGIS's coverage submissions unreliable and unpersuasive. Because the incorrect extracts affected the award-coverage analysis and standing, the Commission dismissed the variation applications for three employees.

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/2555/Applications_by_BGIS_Pty_Ltd_2026_FWC_1669_8_May_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2555/Applications_by_BGIS_Pty_Ltd_2026_FWC_1669_8_May_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