A Melbourne worker who relied on a chatbot as his legal expert to create fake AI evidence has had his Fair Work general protections claim thrown out by a federal court. The worker used AI to generate an “evidence list” of documents that were completely made up. The court discovered this after an opposing lawyer reported that he heard the worker refer to AI as his “industry expert.” The court said that the blunder was a “cautionary tale” about the dangers of befriending AI chatbots that “masquerade as legal advisors.”
In this article, we look at the events of this Federal Circuit and Family Court case: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026]. We’ll also look at the case of a worker whose reliance on AI-fabricated evidence led the Fair Work Commission to invite a costs application against him.
Case Summary: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- Key employee argument:His employer violated the Fair Work general protections by dismissing him for raising workplace concerns.
- Key employer argument: The worker repeatedly failed to produce documents central to his claim. This obstructed its ability to prepare a defence.
- Court outcome:The worker’s claim was dismissed. His evidence was fabricated by AI and he failed to comply with a court order to produce documents.
Fair Work general protections claim tossed due to AI-generated ‘evidence’
Weiman Ba worked as a delivery driver for Sterling Parts from November 2021 until his termination of employment on 29 September 2025. He subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim against respondents Sterling Parts Australia and Sterling Parts (Melbourne). Mr Ba was self-represented and used a Mandarin interpreter during proceedings. He alleged that Sterling Parts controlled his work through an “integration national system” comprising various internal policies. He claimed that he had raised concerns about his working arrangements, conditions and incorrect classification as an independent contractor.
Mr Ba alleged that Sterling Parts dismissed him by refusing him access to perform his duties. He claimed this constituted a contravention of section 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Ba also sought compensation for alleged underpayments, unpaid annual leave and unpaid superannuation arising from the incorrect classification as a contractor.
Cited documents in evidence, but failed to produce them
To support his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr Ba filed a document titled “Schedule of Documents (Evidence List).” It listed 38 items, each given a reference number beginning with the prefix “EV.” The list included entries such as a “Signed Service Agreement,” a “Driver Handbook,” a “Dispatch System Manual” and a “Three-Tier Management Structure.” Mr Ba claimed that each document proved specific elements of an employment relationship. He repeatedly cross-referenced these documents throughout his statement of claim.
From 30 March 2026, the second respondent’s lawyer made repeated requests for Mr Ba to produce copies of the documents referenced in his evidence list. The lawyer said that his client needed them in order to properly plead its defence. Mr Ba’s initial response provided only brief written summaries of some documents rather than the documents themselves. At a directions hearing, Mr Ba told the court’s registrar that he was willing to produce the documents.
However, when the lawyer followed up, Mr Ba responded only by reattaching the same evidence list, without any documents. Over the following weeks, Mr Ba maintained that he had already complied with the court’s orders. He said that producing the documents would be “addressed at the appropriate stage.”
‘My industry expert’: Lawyer suspected worker was using AI
On 20 April 2026, the second respondent’s lawyer raised his suspicion that Mr Ba had used AI to prepare his documents and correspondence. He noted that Mr Ba had referred to the chatbot as his “industry expert” in pre-litigation correspondence. The lawyer cautioned that continued misuse of AI, including having a chatbot generate evidence, might result in a costs application against Mr Ba.
On 13 May 2026, the second respondent formally served Mr Ba with a notice requiring him to produce each of the 38 documents within seven days. Mr Ba responded that he did not consider production necessary, given the second respondent had already filed its defence.
Court ordered production or dismissal of Fair Work general protections claim
At a directions hearing on 17 June 2026, both respondents sought orders requiring Mr Ba to produce the documents within a week. This self-executing order would see his Fair Work general protections claim dismissed automatically if he failed to comply. The court noted that Mr Ba “was not a helpful or cooperative participant” at the hearing. It also said that he was “deliberately obtuse” when asked to address the document requests. When asked whether the documents in his evidence list actually existed, Mr Ba did not provide a direct answer. He instead said they would be produced “in the future.”
On 24 June 2026, Mr Ba sent a “submission letter” purporting to comply with the order. However, of the 38 documents listed, he provided only a description of one document, a reference to a second and a copy of a third. That third document was the respondent’s own termination email, a document the respondent had itself prepared and already possessed.
Why did the court dismiss the Fair Work general protections claim?
Mr Ba’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in July 2026. It dismissed his claim in full for failing to comply with the self-executing production order. This decision was based on the following findings:
- Mr Ba’s evidence list “was generated by an AI tool.” The documents referred to either did not exist or could not be identified as described.
- His continued reliance on the misleading evidence list “arguably gave rise to an abuse of process,” and came “perilously close” to engaging the court’s contempt.
- Mr Ba had engaged in “obstruction and prevarication” regarding document production that continued despite directions from the court.
- His suggestion that he did not understand what was required of him was “disingenuous.”
- The evidence list was “integral” to Mr Ba’s case, given his claim relied heavily on the identification of documents said to prove his employment relationship.
Court highlighted the perils of using AI as a ‘legal advisor’
In closing, the court acknowledged that “responsible use” of AI tools can have “significant benefits for efficiency and access for justice.” However, it noted that while “AI has the capacity to flatter and beguile,” it can also “obscure and undermine.” The court noted the “sycophantic tendency” of AI tools to prioritise user approval “over truth.” This can make them “especially dangerous and unpredictable” without careful oversight.
The court said that “AI is not a lawyer” and is not authorised in any Australian jurisdiction to provide legal advice. It does not owe a duty to “observe regulatory or ethical standards” nor does it “care about the truth.” The court commented that it would be an “unsatisfactory outcome” if the misuse of AI resulted in a good claim being “thrown on the proverbial scrap heap.” This was the situation with the case in question. The court said that Mr Ba’s “blind faith in his AI ‘legal expert’” meant that the merits of his Fair Work general protections claim, nor the respondents’ defence, would be tested.
AI-generated evidence tanks worker’s Fair Work general protections claim
Another Fair Work case where a worker used AI as a legal expert to their detriment is Reece Hoverd v M & J D Pty Ltd [2026]. The Fair Work Commission found the worker had relied on AI-generated contract clauses and award provisions that did not exist. Not only was the claim dismissed, but the Commission also invited the employer to apply for costs. This was due to the worker’s reliance on the fabricated AI evidence. The Commission said that his continued reliance on the fake evidence was “not mere ignorance” but instead a “deliberate misrepresentation.”
Case Summary: Reece Hoverd v M & J D Pty Ltd [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission QLD
- Key employee argument: A demotion imposed in retaliation for objecting to a shift change left him with no choice but to resign, amounting to constructive dismissal.
- Key employer argument:The worker resigned voluntarily after being assigned duties within the scope of his contract, following a temporary and lawful roster change.
- Fair Work outcome: The worker was not constructively dismissed. His reliance on AI led to “egregious misrepresentations” in his submitted evidence, leading to the Commission inviting the employer to apply for costs.
Worker’s fabricated AI evidence sinks constructive dismissal claim
Queensland-based Reece Hoverd was employed by M & J D Pty Ltd as an earthmoving plant labourer under a contract that began on 4 September 2025. In around October 2025, the company proposed that Mr Hoverd’s finish time be extended from 4:30pm to 6pm until Christmas. In late November 2025, Mr Hoverd emailed his boss refusing to move to the new shift time. He cited family and church commitments. He also claimed there was a clause in the Waste Management Award 2020 that required majority consent for any finishing time beyond 5pm. However, this clause did not exist.
M & J D’s general manager responded saying that the change was temporary. He told Mr Hoverd that he would not have to work additional hours, only different hours. Following a meeting later that day, Mr Hoverd claimed he had been given an “ultimatum” and threatened with the termination of employment. That same day, Mr Hoverd was assigned to work on silt fencing duties, which he characterised as retaliatory. He resigned immediately by email, asserting this amounted to an unlawful demotion and constructive dismissal.
Why did the worker argue he was constructively dismissed?
In his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr Hoverd made the following arguments:
- His reassignment to labouring duties constituted a unilateral demotion that breached his employment contract.
- This reassignment was retaliation for having exercised a workplace right to refuse unreasonable additional hours.
- He was not told when the labouring duties would end, and treated this as a permanent reassignment.
- He had been given an ultimatum regarding the shift change and felt he had no real choice but to resign.
In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, M & J D lodged a jurisdictional objection arguing that Mr Hoverd had resigned and therefore had not been dismissed. The company contended that the shift change was clearly temporary and within its rights to direct. M & J D maintained that his assignment to silt fencing duties was within the bounds of his position description. The company further submitted that Mr Hoverd had other options available to him besides resigning.
AI use uncovered during Fair Work Commission proceedings
Mr Hoverd admitted to the Fair Work Commission that he “used AI tools to assist in organising and drafting my submissions.” He qualified that statement by saying all his submissions were “based on my own knowledge and documentation.” Mr Hoverd relied on AI to extract the terms of his employment contract, rather than reading the contract himself. The AI-generated version of his contract, which he presented to the Commission, differed from the actual signed document.
It changed his job title, describing him as a “Full-Time Landfill Operator” rather than his actual title, “Earthmoving Plant Operator/Labourer.” The AI-generated version also asserted he had set hours of “6:00am – 4:30pm Monday to Friday.” However, this did not appear in his actual contract. Mr Hoverd also relied on a non-existent clause of the Waste Management Award 2020, which he claimed required majority employee consent for any finish time after 5pm. No such clause exists, and the Award has no such requirement.
Why did Fair Work find that the worker was not constructively dismissed?
Mr Hoverd’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. It found that he had resigned voluntarily after “being assigned a task he did not like.” Because Mr Hoverd was not found to have been dismissed, his Fair Work claim was thrown out. This decision was based on the following findings:
- Mr Hoverd had not been demoted as his position description included silt fencing duties. There was no evidence he was permanently assigned to the duties.
- The evidence of Mr Hoverd’s supervisor, who denied telling Mr Hoverd he had been assigned labouring duties because of his complaints, was preferred.
- Mr Hoverd’s “honesty and credibility as a witness” were seriously in doubt. He had engaged in “deliberate misrepresentation” rather than mere ignorance of the law
- There was no requirement under the Award for majority agreement to change start and finish times.
- Mr Hoverd was not forced to resign because of the shift change, given it was temporary.
- Other reasonable options had been available to Mr Hoverd besides resigning. This included seeking clarification, lodging a Fair Work claim without resigning, or working the shift as directed.
Fair Work welcomed costs application due to AI use
The Fair Work Commission did not condemn the use of AI as a drafting tool per se. However, it did take exception to Mr Hoverd’s failure to verify what the AI produced. The Commission noted that none of the contract clauses Mr Horverd had extracted using AI were “accurately represented.” It also highlighted the “egregious misrepresentations” relating to the incorrect position title and working hours.
The Commission commented that Mr Hoverd’s contract was “not an excessively long document.” This made it particularly unreasonable that he chose to rely on AI-extracted terms “which did not exist” instead of reading the actual contract. It was only after the Commission reminded him that he was giving sworn evidence that Mr Hoverd conceded his contract did not say what he had claimed. The Commission said that his repeated reliance on the fabricated evidence was “not mere ignorance” but instead a “deliberate misrepresentation.” Because of this, the Commission “welcome[d] a costs application” from M & J D for Mr Hoverd to pay for the costs of their solicitor.
Read more: Meta Glasses at Work: A Workplace Privacy Nightmare?
Fair Work FAQs
- Can you use AI to complete a Fair Work claim?
While there’s no outright ban on using AI tools to help draft or organise a Fair Work claim, relying on AI-generated content is extremely risky. Courts and tribunals have made clear that AI is not a lawyer, does not owe any duty to the court or to the person using it, and can generate convincing but entirely fabricated information.
In Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026], the Federal Circuit and Family Court dismissed a worker’s claim after finding his “evidence list” had been generated by an AI tool and referenced documents that either did not exist. The court described the case as “a cautionary” tale about the dangers of using AI tools that “masquerade as legal advisors.”
- On what grounds can you claim constructive dismissal?
Constructive dismissal (or forced resignation) occurs when an employee resigns because their employer’s conduct left them with no real choice but to do so. Under Fair Work laws, the conduct must be such that resignation was the probable or intended result.
In Reece Hoverd v M & J D Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission found that a worker who resigned after being assigned labouring duties following a dispute over a temporary shift change had not been constructively dismissed. The Commission found the duties fell within his existing position description and the shift change was temporary. He ultimately had other options available besides resigning, meaning his decision to quit was voluntary.
- Considering a constructive dismissal or general protections claim?
If you believe you have been forced to resign or have had your workplace rights violated, we at A Whole New Approach can help. With over 40 years of combined experience dealing with the Fair Work Commission, we can help you take action and use the system against your employer.
We offer a no win, no fee service, and your initial consultation with us is free and confidential. Call us today on 1300 766 700.
