Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

Australia's Fair Work Commission refuses a former employee more time for a claim he brought on ChatGPT's advice, calling the proceedings hopeless

A former employee who had resigned in writing on 19 October 2022 applied to Australia's Fair Work Commission almost two and a half years later to have a general protections dismissal dispute dealt with, and asked for an extension of time for a delay of 919 days. In [2025] FWC 2289 (8 August 2025) the Deputy President recorded that he confirmed using ChatGPT to prepare the application, that the application included ChatGPT advice saying his former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he commence legal actions including this one, and that the Commission could see no basis for that advice. ChatGPT had also advised him to consult a lawyer or union representative, which he did not do. The Commission said he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion, called the proceedings hopeless, found that his reliance on ChatGPT to bring an apparently unmeritorious claim told against an extension, announced its refusal at a conference on 6 August 2025 and dismissed the application.

AI system
ChatGPT
Occurred
2025
Reported
8 August 2025
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Legal Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
6 claims: 6 documented. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: ChatGPT, which the applicant confirmed using to prepare his application and whose advice, quoted in the application, suggested he commence proceedings, per the Fair Work Commission

What Happened

Background. According to the Fair Work Commission, the applicant resigned from his employment in writing on 19 October 2022. Almost two and a half years later he applied under s. 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the Commission to deal with a dispute over whether he had been dismissed in contravention of the general protections, and sought an extension of time; the former employer opposed the extension and said he had resigned. The delay was 919 days.

The ChatGPT advice. At a conference on 6 August 2025 he confirmed that he had used 'an artificial intelligence large language model, Chat GPT' in preparing the application. The Commission said this was clear from deficiencies in the application, which failed to address what a general protections claim requires. The application included an extract of ChatGPT's advice that various employment and other statutory obligations had been contravened by the former employer, and the advice suggested he commence various legal actions, including the s. 365 application. The Deputy President wrote: 'I can see no basis for this advice.' ChatGPT had also advised him to consult a legal professional or union representative; he did not do so.

Outcome. The Commission said he 'simply followed the suggestion made by Chat GPT and commenced the proceedings', that the result was proceedings 'best described as hopeless' that unnecessarily used the Commission's and the employer's resources, and that the case highlighted 'the obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice'. It found exceptional circumstances in the lengthy delay and in his reliance on ChatGPT to bring an apparently unmeritorious claim, held that those circumstances told against extending time, also weighed prejudice to the employer, and dismissed the application. It did not decide whether the resignation was a dismissal. His stated reasons for the delay (unawareness of his rights and fear of retribution) were rejected separately as insufficient or unsupported.

Reported harm

The Fair Work Commission refused the extension of time and dismissed the former employee's application, calling the proceedings he brought on ChatGPT's suggestion hopeless and finding his reliance on ChatGPT told against an extension.

How Harm Occurred

A former employee relied on ChatGPT's advice that his ex-employer had breached its obligations and that he should bring proceedings; the tribunal saw no basis for the advice, called the resulting claim hopeless and refused to extend time, citing his reliance on ChatGPT.

Outcome

Resolved

The Deputy President announced the refusal to extend time at the end of a conference on 6 August 2025 and published reasons on 8 August 2025 ([2025] FWC 2289); the application was dismissed. No appeal is reported in the sources read.

What remains unknown

  • Which ChatGPT version he used and the full advice; the decision quotes only an extract.
  • Where the applicant worked and lives; the decision does not say.
  • Whether he appealed; no appeal is reported in the sources read.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The Fair Work Commission recorded that the applicant confirmed preparing his application with ChatGPT and that the application quoted ChatGPT advice saying his former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he bring proceedings including this one. It found no basis for the advice, said he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion and commenced hopeless proceedings, and named his reliance on ChatGPT as a circumstance telling against the extension it refused.

6 claims: 6 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented According to the Fair Work Commission, the applicant resigned in writing on 19 October 2022 and applied under s. 365 of the Fair Work Act almost two and a half years later, seeking an extension of time for a delay of 919 days; the former employer opposed the extension and said he had resigned.

Causal attribution. The decision's own statement of the procedural facts.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'resigned from his employment in writing on 19 October 2022. He makes his application almost 2 and a half years after his resignation.'; 'The delay is 919 days.'; 'opposes the extension of time and asserts that'; 'was not dismissed, as he resigned.'
Documented The applicant confirmed at the conference that he used ChatGPT to prepare his application, and the application included an extract of ChatGPT advice saying the former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he commence legal actions including the s. 365 application.

Causal attribution. The tribunal's record of the applicant's confirmation and of the application's contents; HRD relays the same decision.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'confirmed during the conference that he had used an artificial intelligence large language model, Chat GPT, in preparing his application.'; 'The application also included an extract from advice given by Chat GPT which was that various employment and other statutory obligations had been contravened by the Respondent. The advice suggested that'; 'commence various legal actions against the Respondent, including making application under s. 365 of the Act.'
  • hcamag.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The application included an extract from ChatGPT's advice suggesting that various employment and statutory obligations had been contravened by the employer.'
Documented The Commission said it could see no basis for ChatGPT's advice, and recorded that ChatGPT had also advised him to consult a legal professional or union representative, which he did not do.

Causal attribution. The tribunal's finding on the advice and its record of the advice's caveat.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'I can see no basis for this advice.'; 'Chat GPT also advised'; 'to consult a legal professional or union representative to determine the appropriate course of action. He did not do so.'
Documented The Commission found that he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion and commenced proceedings best described as hopeless, unnecessarily wasting the resources of the Commission and the former employer.

Causal attribution. The tribunal's own causal finding linking the ChatGPT advice to the proceedings.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'simply followed the suggestion made by Chat GPT and commenced the proceedings. The circumstances highlight the obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice.'; 'commencing proceedings that are best described as hopeless and unnecessarily wasting the resources of the Commission and the Respondent'
  • hcamag.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Instead, the worker simply followed the AI system's suggestion to commence proceedings, highlighting what the Commission described as "the obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice."'
Documented The Commission found exceptional circumstances in the lengthy delay and his reliance on ChatGPT to bring an apparently unmeritorious claim, held that these told against extending time, also weighed prejudice to the employer, and dismissed the application; it announced the refusal at the conference on 6 August 2025.

Causal attribution. The tribunal's decision; the AI reliance is one of the circumstances it weighed, alongside the delay and prejudice.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'being the lengthy delay in bringing the application and'; 'use of, and reliance upon, Chat GPT to bring what appears to be an altogether unmeritorious claim. I also find that those circumstances tell against granting an extension of time'; 'The application is dismissed.'; 'I announced my decision to refuse to extend time at the conclusion of the conference.'
Documented The Commission rejected his stated reasons for the delay separately: unawareness of workplace rights is not an exceptional circumstance, and his fear of retribution was not supported by evidence.

Causal attribution. Contrary context: the delay findings do not depend on the AI use.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The first reason does not amount to exceptional circumstances.'; 'assertion was not supported by any evidence.'

Sources

2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-25: the Fair Work Commission decision [2025] FWC 2289 (Deputy President, Sydney, 8 August 2025), PDF from fwc.gov.au (HTTP 200), text extracted with pdftotext; the whole three-page decision was read. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-10-25 (HTTP 200). HRD Australia (HCAMag) report published 14 August 2025 summarising [2025] FWC 2289; it relays the decision, so it shares the decision's independence group. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Australia.

The decision was made by Australia's Fair Work Commission (Deputy President, Sydney) under the Fair Work Act 2009, with the conference held by video. The decision does not state where the applicant worked or lives, so the event and affected-person countries are left unknown.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-25: Published on the Fair Work Commission's own findings: a former employee brought a general protections application on ChatGPT's advice, the Commission found no basis for the advice, called the proceedings hopeless and refused an extension, naming his reliance on ChatGPT. The applicant is not named in the record.

People described

A self-represented former employee whose application to the Fair Work Commission, prepared with ChatGPT, was dismissed

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the applicant who used ChatGPT, per the Fair Work Commission decision.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#australia#fair-work-commission#chatgpt#legal-advice#self-represented-litigant#extension-of-time#tribunal-finding

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Australia's Fair Work Commission refuses a former employee more time for a claim he brought on ChatGPT's advice, calling the proceedings hopeless. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-fair-work-commission-refuses-former-employee-extension-for-claim-he-filed-on-chatgpt-advice

BibTeX

@misc{2025_fair_work_commission_refuses_former_employee_extension_for_claim_he_filed_on_chatgpt_advice,
  title = {Australia's Fair Work Commission refuses a former employee more time for a claim he brought on ChatGPT's advice, calling the proceedings hopeless},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-fair-work-commission-refuses-former-employee-extension-for-claim-he-filed-on-chatgpt-advice}
}

Related cases

Medium ChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

Medium ChatGPT

New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony

Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.

Medium ChatGPT

Alabama federal judge reprimands and disqualifies three Butler Snow lawyers and refers them to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations (2025)

In an incarcerated man's lawsuit against Alabama prison officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, two motions filed in May 2025 for the defence of a former Alabama corrections commissioner contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited. Lawyers of the Butler Snow firm, which the state retains to defend its prisons, told the court that a partner had obtained the citations from ChatGPT and had not verified them. On 23 July 2025 Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded three of the firm's lawyers, disqualified them from the case and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar, and ordered them to give the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. She declined to suspend them and released the firm and two other lawyers without sanction.

Medium ChatGPT

Ontario: lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-invented case law in a factum was referred for criminal contempt and suspended for six months, legal press reports

An Ontario lawyer relied, at a 1 May 2025 Superior Court hearing in an estate and family-law matter, on a factum citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited. The judge ordered her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, then withdrew the order on 20 May 2025 after she said her staff had used ChatGPT without her knowledge. On 30 September 2025 she told the court that she alone had prepared the factum with ChatGPT and that her earlier account was untrue; the court referred the matter to Ontario’s Attorney General for criminal contempt proceedings in December 2025. In July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months, finding she relied on AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about it. The account comes from legal-press and law-firm reports of the decisions; the criminal contempt case was still ongoing at the last report read.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents