Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Emmanuel Tischler v Avada Traffic 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 →

Emmanuel Tischler v Avada Traffic Pty Ltd

Court
Fair Work Commission - Full Bench
Jurisdiction
Australia
Decided
2026-07-16
AI tool
Google AI
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; no professional sanction imposed.
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The notice asserted that s 387(a) establishes a 'threshold', an incorrect legal characterization identified by the Court as an AI-generated misuse of legal terminology. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The notice treated the Commissioner's summary of the parties' evidence and arguments as findings and conclusions, a mischaracterisation flagged by the Court as typical of AI output.

Details

The appellant admitted copying and pasting the decision into Google AI and used its output in his revised notice of appeal. The Commission found the notice contained AI-typical errors—misuse of legal terminology (e.g. treating s 387(a) as a 'threshold') and mistaking the Commissioner's summaries for findings—rendering the grounds unarguable. The Full Bench refused permission to appeal, noting the matter did not engage the public interest and that the AI-generated errors did not show an appealable error or injustice.

Sanction teardown · Fair Work Commission - Full Bench, Australia · 2026-07-16

Emmanuel Tischler v Avada Traffic Pty Ltd

What happened

In Fair Work Commission - Full Bench, Australia, a filing relied on Google AI to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    The notice asserted that s 387(a) establishes a 'threshold', an incorrect legal characterization identified by the Court as an AI-generated misuse of legal terminology.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    The notice treated the Commissioner's summary of the parties' evidence and arguments as findings and conclusions, a mischaracterisation flagged by the Court as typical of AI output.

Which AI tool

Google AI. 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

Permission to appeal refused; no professional sanction imposed.

Additional detail

The appellant admitted copying and pasting the decision into Google AI and used its output in his revised notice of appeal. The Commission found the notice contained AI-typical errors—misuse of legal terminology (e.g. treating s 387(a) as a 'threshold') and mistaking the Commissioner's summaries for findings—rendering the grounds unarguable. The Full Bench refused permission to appeal, noting the matter did not engage the public interest and that the AI-generated errors did not show an appealable error or injustice.

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/2980/Emmanuel_Tischler_v_Avada_Traffic_Pty_Ltd_2026_FWCFB_174_16_July_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2980/Emmanuel_Tischler_v_Avada_Traffic_Pty_Ltd_2026_FWCFB_174_16_July_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