Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 AUGUST 2026

More AI Slop In The Fair Work Juris­dic­tion: The Fight Back

Swaab Attorneys
Explore more from Swaab Attorneys

Recent court decisions reveal the pitfalls of relying on artificial intelligence in employment litigation, as judges dismiss cases where applicants used AI to generate evidence and submissions without proper verification. These rulings highlight the dangers of treating AI chatbots as legal advisors and the consequences of failing to disclose or properly supervise AI-generated content in court proceedings.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Michael Byrnes
Michael Byrnes
Author LinkedIn connections

In two recent cas­es both the Fair Work Com­mis­sion (FWC) and Fed­er­al Cir­cuit and Fam­i­ly Court of Aus­tralia (FCF­CoA) have fought back against the indis­crim­i­nate and mis­guid­ed use of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence (AI) by applicants.

Ba v Ster­ling Parts Aus­tralia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245

In Ba v Ster­ling Parts Aus­tralia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245, Judge Symons of the FCF­CoA dis­missed an appli­ca­tion in which the Appli­cant had, so her Hon­our inferred, inap­pro­pri­ate­ly used AI to pro­duce an orig­i­nat­ing process doc­u­ment that was inte­gral to the case being advanced. 

Judge Symons sets the scene at para­graph one:

“What fol­lows is a cau­tion­ary tale about the dan­gers of befriend­ing Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence (AI)-powered chat­bots who mas­quer­ade as legal advi­sors.”

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in
For further information please contact:

Michael Byrnes, Partner
Phone: + 61 2 9233 5544
Email: [email protected]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

How To Draft A Defence And Reply

Queensland civil procedure requires defendants to respond to each factual allegation with precision—admissions, denials, or non-admissions must be properly explained, while inadequate responses risk being treated as admissions. Replies serve a distinct and limited purpose, addressing only new matters raised in the defence that could affect the claim's maintainability or introduce unexpected factual questions.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Counterclaims In Queensland Civil Proceedings: Complete Guide

When a defendant in Queensland civil litigation wishes to pursue its own claim against the plaintiff, a counterclaim provides the procedural mechanism to do so within the existing proceeding. Understanding the technical requirements for pleading, serving, and answering counterclaims—including joinder of additional parties, limitation periods, and the effect of discontinuance—is essential for both claimants and respondents navigating commercial disputes.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Employ­ers Ban­ning AI Smart Glass­es From The Workplace

As wearable AI technology becomes more prevalent, employers face critical decisions about whether to ban smart glasses in the workplace. This analysis explores the privacy, cybersecurity, and workplace surveillance risks associated with AI-enabled eyewear, while examining the legal framework for regulating their use. Two important exceptions—disability accommodations and workplace safety—complicate what might otherwise be a straightforward prohibition.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys