Ferko v Beyond Reach Ltd t/a Car Wash Crew, ADJ-00060622
·Workplace Relations Commission·IEDismissal
Before Ireland's Workplace Relations Commission, complainant Imrich Ferko's complaint form was prepared by his sister using AI, and he admitted not verifying it before submission. Adjudication Officer Christina Ryan gave his evidence materially reduced weight, preferred the respondent, and held the complaint not well-founded, while noting that assisted complaint preparation is not itself improper.
- Court
- Workplace Relations Commission
- Date
- 2026-03-02
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- A litigant-in-person complainant's WRC complaint form was prepared by his sister using AI. He accepted he had not fully reviewed or verified the contents before submission and could not clearly explain aspects of the complaint advanced in his own name at the hearing.
- Outcome
- Dismissal
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-11
What the court said
“During the hearing, the Complainant accepted that the complaint form submitted to the WRC had been prepared by his sister on his behalf and that the narrative contained within the form had been generated using artificial intelligence.”
“He stated that he was not fully familiar with all aspects of the contents submitted in his name and was not in a position to clearly articulate the precise legal nature of the complaint.”
“While assistance in preparing complaints is not improper, a complainant remains responsible for the accuracy of allegations made on his behalf.”
“In the circumstances, this materially reduced the weight that could be attached to the Complainant’s evidence.”
Timeline
- The complainant commenced employment with the respondent.
- His employment ended and he referred the complaint to the WRC.
- The adjudication hearing was held.
- The WRC found the complaint not well-founded.
Why this case matters
Ferko is not a fake-authority case. Its value is that an employment tribunal reduced the weight of a party's evidence because he adopted an AI-generated complaint without fully knowing what it said. Compared with Guerin v O'Doherty, the Irish Court of Appeal record about hallucinated authorities, Ferko shows a lower-stakes but practical risk: AI-assisted drafting can damage a claim even when no citation is invented. The WRC also drew the line carefully, saying help with a complaint is allowed but responsibility remains with the named complainant.
Practice note
A person who gets help drafting a WRC complaint should read the final text, check each factual allegation against records, and be able to explain the legal complaint at the hearing. If AI was used by a helper, keep the prompts or drafts and correct anything the complainant cannot personally stand over before submission.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Guerin v O'Doherty, [2026] IECA 482026-03-26 · Court of Appeal (Ireland) · DismissalIn the Irish Court of Appeal, self-represented appellant Gemma O'Doherty filed AI-prepared submissions citing authorities that did not exist and never disclosed her use of AI. Costello P dismissed her appeal and issued…
- Von Geitz v Kelly & Ors; Von Geitz v Robertson & Ors, [2026] IECA 292026-03-16 · Court of Appeal (Ireland) · DismissalIn the Irish Court of Appeal, Allen J found self-represented plaintiff Juerg Von Geitz's submissions across two appeals contained unsupported propositions, wrong citations and 'a few non-existent cases' suggested to be…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Ferko v Beyond Reach Ltd t/a Car Wash Crew, ADJ-00060622”, safelegalai.com/tracker/ferko-v-beyond-reach (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.