Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Fernando Oliveira v Ryanair DAC 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 →

Fernando Oliveira v Ryanair DAC

Court
Workplace Relations Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Decided
2025-10-01
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Conduct described as abuse of process
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant cited ADJ-00021453 as awarding €18,000 for procedural breaches; Respondent noted the referenced file related to industrial relations/wages and was dismissed as the complainant did not appear. || Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant relied on ADJ-00040112 for career-stagnation awards; Respondent identified ADJ-00040112 as a phantom/non-existent determination. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant cited ADJ-00035678 as awarding €8,000 for unlawful deductions; Respondent indicated the matter was an industrial relations complaint and not a precedent for unlawful deductions as claimed. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant cited ADJ-00029543 as supporting an award for harassment; Respondent observed the referenced matter concerned alleged religious harassment where harassment was not established and no award was made. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant cited ADJ-00026789 as a precedent awarding €10,000 for discriminatory searches; Respondent noted that decision did not reference targeted searches nor make such an award. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant relied on DEC-E2016-105 claiming a €15,000 award for racial harassment; Respondent/Adjudicator noted the decision was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and outcome was misrepresented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant cited ADJ-00028765 as a precedent awarding €12,000 for coordinated false complaints; Respondent noted the referenced matter was a constructive dismissal claim that was dismissed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant relied on ADJ-00039821 as precedent for disciplining based on anonymous reports; Respondent identified ADJ-00039821 as a phantom/non-existent determination. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant cited ADJ-00030217 as authority overturning warnings; Respondent noted the decision related to penalisation and contained no finding concerning 'warning' or overturning sanctions, so the citation was misapplied.

Details

The Adjudication Officer found the complainant's submissions contained multiple inaccurate and non‑existent legal citations. The Respondent had flagged AI‑generated drafting and numerous phantom or misquoted determinations; the Officer concluded the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case and that the submissions contained egregious and misleading citations.

Sanction teardown · Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland · 2025-10-01

Fernando Oliveira v Ryanair DAC

What happened

In Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland, 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:

  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Complainant cited ADJ-00021453 as awarding €18,000 for procedural breaches; Respondent noted the referenced file related to industrial relations/wages and was dismissed as the complainant did not appear.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Complainant relied on ADJ-00040112 for career-stagnation awards; Respondent identified ADJ-00040112 as a phantom/non-existent determination.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Complainant cited ADJ-00035678 as awarding €8,000 for unlawful deductions; Respondent indicated the matter was an industrial relations complaint and not a precedent for unlawful deductions as claimed.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Complainant cited ADJ-00029543 as supporting an award for harassment; Respondent observed the referenced matter concerned alleged religious harassment where harassment was not established and no award was made.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Complainant cited ADJ-00026789 as a precedent awarding €10,000 for discriminatory searches; Respondent noted that decision did not reference targeted searches nor make such an award.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Complainant relied on DEC-E2016-105 claiming a €15,000 award for racial harassment; Respondent/Adjudicator noted the decision was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and outcome was misrepresented.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Complainant cited ADJ-00028765 as a precedent awarding €12,000 for coordinated false complaints; Respondent noted the referenced matter was a constructive dismissal claim that was dismissed.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Complainant relied on ADJ-00039821 as precedent for disciplining based on anonymous reports; Respondent identified ADJ-00039821 as a phantom/non-existent determination.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Complainant cited ADJ-00030217 as authority overturning warnings; Respondent noted the decision related to penalisation and contained no finding concerning 'warning' or overturning sanctions, so the citation was misapplied.

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

Conduct described as abuse of process

Additional detail

The Adjudication Officer found the complainant's submissions contained multiple inaccurate and non‑existent legal citations. The Respondent had flagged AI‑generated drafting and numerous phantom or misquoted determinations; the Officer concluded the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case and that the submissions contained egregious and misleading citations.

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/871/ADJ-00055225_-_Workplace_Relations_Commission.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/871/ADJ-00055225_-_Workplace_Relations_Commission.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