Shahin v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of Multicultural NSW (No 2) [2026] NSWIRComm 11
·Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (Full Bench)·AUOther
A Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales refused leave to appeal an unfair-dismissal decision, criticising the self-represented appellant's use of generative AI under Practice Note 33 after his submissions applied the wrong statute and his evidence about post-dismissal income was inconsistent. The bench drew adverse inferences but made no costs order.
- Court
- Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (Full Bench)
- Date
- 2026-07-21
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- A self-represented appellant's AI-prepared evidence and submissions imported Fair Work Act concepts inapplicable under the NSW Industrial Relations Act and contained inconsistent factual assertions about mitigation and post-dismissal income. He admitted using generative AI.
- Outcome
- Other
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- Appeal submissions used a “valid reason” threshold drawn from Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 387(a), but that concept did not exist in the NSW Industrial Relations Act test
- AI-assisted case materials gave inconsistent accounts of mitigation and post-dismissal income, including Sydney Local Health District income records
- Appeal ground said the Commissioner criticised AI-assisted drafting of submissions; the Full Bench found the actual criticism was AI use in evidence and failure to ensure truth
- Written submissions and reply documents relied on repetitive assertions without identifying an arguable error in the first-instance decision
What the court said
“The Appellant’s submissions appear to be a classic manifestation of the problems that arise from an over-reliance on the use of generative artificial intelligence by unrepresented litigants, and a failure to properly vet them”
“No criticism was levelled at the Appellant for using generative AI in “preparing submissions”.”
“The relevant criticisms at Decision [41], reflecting Practice Note 33, was in the use of generative AI in the preparation of evidence, and for failing to ensure “the truth and accuracy of materials relied upon in the matter”.”
“The failure to attend to the truth and accuracy of materials relied upon by a litigant (whether the product of AI or not) is self-evidently not a mere matter of practice and procedure.”
Timeline
- Multicultural NSW terminated Shahin’s casual interpreter employment
- Commissioner told him AI-assisted submissions still required correctness checks
- Commissioner Webster dismissed the unfair-dismissal application
- Shahin filed application for leave to appeal and appeal
- Shahin relied on an outline of submissions dated 9 June
- Full Bench heard the leave application and appeal concurrently
- Full Bench refused leave to appeal
Why this case matters
Shahin is an AI-evidence and self-represented-litigant record, not a fake-case sanctions order. That separates it from Valu, JNE24 and Asif, which turn on false authorities in migration litigation. The Full Bench accepted that Practice Note 33 permits AI for submissions, but drew a hard line at evidence and truth. The consequence was not costs or referral; it was rejection of an appeal ground and preservation of adverse credibility inferences. The record shows PN 33 working as a verification rule for litigants as well as lawyers.
Practice note
Under NSW Practice Note 33, a self-represented party may use AI to draft submissions but must verify authorities and evidence references without relying only on AI. Do not use AI to generate, rephrase or strengthen witness evidence without leave. If AI helped prepare evidence or mitigation material, compare it against the documents produced and correct inconsistencies before the hearing.
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
- Neill-Fraser v Tasmania Parole Board (Supreme Court of Tasmania, reported 15 Sep 2026)2026-09-15 · Supreme Court of Tasmania · OtherIn Tasmania, ABC and the Human Rights Law Centre reported that Justice Stephen Estcourt set aside Susan Neill-Fraser's media-related parole conditions after the State conceded the Parole Board relied on a document with…
- MFRD and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS), [2026] ARTA 18332026-08-26 · Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia · WarningIn Australia's Administrative Review Tribunal, a self-represented NDIS applicant filed submissions prepared with generative AI that contained fictitious tribunal decisions and inaccurate statutory references. General Me…
- Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 14022026-07-22 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · Costs orderDismissing a student-visa judicial review, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia fixed costs of AUD 9,097.93 against a self-represented applicant, increased because of AI misuse, after his ChatGPT-written su…
- Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 11662024-08-27 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · OtherIn Australia's Federal Circuit and Family Court, a Victorian solicitor tendered four non-existent authorities generated by the AI tool in his LEAP practice software. Judge Humphreys referred him to the Victorian Legal S…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Shahin v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of Multicultural NSW (No 2) [2026] NSWIRComm 11”, safelegalai.com/tracker/shahin-v-industrial-relations-secretary (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.