What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Applicant cited Ayub v NSW Trains [2016] FWCFB 5500 para [7] for a proposition the paragraph does not state; court identified this as a sign of AI hallucination. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited B, C & D v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FWCFB 6191 as supporting a point about procedural fairness, but the decision does not stand for that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 930' for reliance-on-flawed-data principle; court noted [2000] FCA 930 is actually Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v B and King v Freshmore is AIRC 283/00 (incorrect citation). || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Submissions referenced Annexure G and Annexure H which do not exist in the hearing bundle; court noted annexures referenced did not support the claims.

Sanction teardown · Fair Work Commission, Australia · 2026-07-23

Pravesh Koonjah v GPC Asia Pacific 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:

False Quotes (Case Law)

Applicant cited Ayub v NSW Trains [2016] FWCFB 5500 para [7] for a proposition the paragraph does not state; court identified this as a sign of AI hallucination.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Applicant cited B, C & D v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FWCFB 6191 as supporting a point about procedural fairness, but the decision does not stand for that proposition.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Applicant cited 'King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 930' for reliance-on-flawed-data principle; court noted [2000] FCA 930 is actually Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v B and King v Freshmore is AIRC 283/00 (incorrect citation).
Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)

Submissions referenced Annexure G and Annexure H which do not exist in the hearing bundle; court noted annexures referenced did not support the claims.

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.

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/2981/Pravesh_Koonjah_v_GPC_Asia_Pacific_Pty_Ltd_2026_FWC_2680_23_July_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

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 checker Back 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 — $49 Sanctions-motion template