Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Goodchild v State of Queensland 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 →

Goodchild v State of Queensland

Court
Queensland IRC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Decided
2025-02-13
AI tool
"Internet searches"
Outcome
Relevant submissions ignored
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent Fair Work Commission decision to justify an extension of time; searches found no such case and Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court gave it no weight. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent FWC case to support her position; the Commission could not locate it and the Applicant later acknowledged sourcing errors; given no weight. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a fabricated FWC authority; Commission's searches failed to identify any such decision; Applicant conceded citation issues; no weight given. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant referenced a non-existent FWC decision; court could not locate it and treated it as unreliable after Applicant's admission; no weight given. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant invoked a fabricated FWC matter; not found on legal databases or the FWC website; Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court disregarded it.

Details

"The Commission accepts the Applicant's explanation. Given that there appears to be significant doubt over whether the authorities cited by the Applicant represent actual decisions from the Fair Work Commission, I will give the authorities cited by the Applicant no weight in determining whether she has provided an explanation for the delay. This appears to be a salutary lesson for litigants in the dangers of relying on general search engines on the internet or artificial intelligence when preparing legal documents."

Sanction teardown · Queensland IRC, Australia · 2025-02-13

Goodchild v State of Queensland

What happened

In Queensland IRC, Australia, a filing relied on "Internet searches" to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant cited a non-existent Fair Work Commission decision to justify an extension of time; searches found no such case and Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court gave it no weight.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant relied on a non-existent FWC case to support her position; the Commission could not locate it and the Applicant later acknowledged sourcing errors; given no weight.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant cited a fabricated FWC authority; Commission's searches failed to identify any such decision; Applicant conceded citation issues; no weight given.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant referenced a non-existent FWC decision; court could not locate it and treated it as unreliable after Applicant's admission; no weight given.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant invoked a fabricated FWC matter; not found on legal databases or the FWC website; Applicant admitted sourcing via general internet searches; court disregarded it.

Which AI tool

"Internet searches". 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

Relevant submissions ignored

Additional detail

"The Commission accepts the Applicant's explanation. Given that there appears to be significant doubt over whether the authorities cited by the Applicant represent actual decisions from the Fair Work Commission, I will give the authorities cited by the Applicant no weight in determining whether she has provided an explanation for the delay. This appears to be a salutary lesson for litigants in the dangers of relying on general search engines on the internet or artificial intelligence when preparing legal documents."

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/550/Goodchild_v_State_of_Queensland_Australia_13_February_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/550/Goodchild_v_State_of_Queensland_Australia_13_February_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