Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Fair Work Commission orders former Aldi worker to pay A$1,230 costs after his AI-drafted unfair dismissal claim kept arguing the wrong date

On 19 August 2026 a Deputy President of Australia's Fair Work Commission ordered a self-represented former Aldi store worker to pay A$1,230 towards Aldi's legal costs. The decision records that his unfair dismissal application, lodged on the evening he was told of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, was obviously prepared using AI and still contained AI drafting notes, and that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI. He was notified of his dismissal three days short of the six-month minimum employment period. According to the decision, his AI-generated materials kept arguing about a different, irrelevant date (when the dismissal took effect), including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice by email on 31 July 2026. He discontinued at the hearing on 5 August 2026. The Deputy President found that continuing after those warnings was unreasonable and said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, while stating that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that the responsibility was his. The decision notes that an appeal was lodged against it.

AI system
Unidentified AI drafting tool
Occurred
26 Mar 2026 to 19 Aug 2026
Reported
19 August 2026
Event location
Australia
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Financial LossLegal Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
7 claims: 7 documented. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: AI tool used by the applicant to draft his unfair dismissal application, emails and submissions, according to the Fair Work Commission; the application retained AI drafting notes. No product is named in the decision

What Happened

The claim. The applicant started at Aldi on 29 September 2025 and was told of his dismissal at about 4 pm on 26 March 2026; he lodged an unfair dismissal application at 10:02 pm. The Commission found the application obviously prepared using AI: it contained drafting notes such as 'Here is your final clean copy-paste version'. Commission staff told him two days later that he did not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

The warnings. On 31 July 2026 the Deputy President wrote to him twice, explaining in plain English that the period ends when an employee is notified of the dismissal and warning of possible costs. His replies and two further submissions, which the decision calls AI generated, again addressed the date the dismissal took effect. The decision notes that the High Court cases cited were real, that Aldi's first written submissions addressed the same wrong question, and it accepted that before 31 July he did not know the correct test.

The order. At the hearing on 5 August 2026 he conceded he had not served the minimum period and discontinued. On 19 August 2026 the Commission ordered him to pay A$1,230, finding his continuation after 31 July unreasonable. It said he was now A$1,230 worse off and that it was his responsibility to assess his own eligibility.

Reported harm

According to the Fair Work Commission's decision, a self-represented former Aldi worker was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs after continuing an ineligible unfair dismissal claim whose AI-generated submissions kept addressing the wrong question; the Commission placed the responsibility on him.

Outcome

Ongoing

Fair Work Commission costs decision [2026] FWC 3144 (Deputy President Easton, Sydney, 19 August 2026), matter U2026/4537: costs of A$1,230 ordered under s.400A of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the period from 31 July 2026, the maximum rates claimable under the regulations. The applicant had discontinued his unfair dismissal application at the hearing on 5 August 2026. The decision carries a note that an appeal under s.604 (C2026/12125) was lodged against it; its outcome is not established in the inspected sources.

What remains unknown

  • Which AI tool the applicant used; the decision names none.
  • Whether the AI tool or the applicant chose the argument about the effective date of dismissal.
  • The outcome of the appeal lodged against the costs decision (C2026/12125), and whether the costs have been paid.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The Fair Work Commission's decision finds that the applicant's unfair dismissal application was obviously prepared using AI and quotes the AI drafting notes it contained, records his concession that he used AI to generate his written submissions, and finds that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI (communicated_with). It finds that those AI-generated materials argued an irrelevant date and addressed the wrong question, including after two warnings, and that his continuation of the claim caused the costs it ordered. The decision says it is quite possible he adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser and places the responsibility on him. No product is named.

7 claims: 7 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented The applicant was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, three days short of the six-month minimum employment period, and lodged an unfair dismissal application that evening.

Causal attribution. Facts recorded by the Commission; the date of notification was never disputed.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'he was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, being 3 days short of 6 months employment'; 'notified of his dismissal at approximately 4:00pm on 26 March 2026'; 'At 10:02pm the same day'
Documented The Commission found that his application was obviously prepared using AI and contained AI drafting notes, that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI, and he conceded using AI to generate his written submissions.

Causal attribution. The Commission's findings and the applicant's concession recorded in the decision.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'application was obviously prepared using AI. It contained AI drafting notes including'; 'every email and document filed in the proceedings was drafted using AI'; 'conceded that he did use Artificial Intelligence to generate his written submissions'
Documented According to the decision, his AI-generated materials argued about the date the dismissal took effect, an irrelevant date, and addressed the wrong question, including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice on 31 July 2026; the High Court cases they cited were real.

Causal attribution. The Commission's own description of the AI-generated materials; whether a different tool or human adviser would have produced the same argument is not established.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'AI generated materials have focused on a different and irrelevant date, being the date the dismissal took effect'; 'AI-driven written submissions filed ahead of the hearing addressed the wrong question'; 'the High Court cases cited were real cases rather than hallucinations'; 'In the morning of Friday 31 July 2026 I took the time to write to'; 'sent to the parties in the afternoon of Friday 31 July 2026'; 'two further AI generated submissions that again addressed the wrong end date'
Documented On 19 August 2026 the Commission ordered him to pay A$1,230 of Aldi's costs for the period from 31 July 2026, finding that continuing the claim after the warnings was unreasonable.

Causal attribution. The order is established by the decision itself.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'costs from 31 July 2026 in the amount of $1230'; 'is now $1230 worse off than he was before he started'; 'relied heavily on artificial intelligence to start and continue his unfair dismissal claim acted unreasonably by continuing his claim'; 'decision to continue his claim in the face of clear and specific information from the Fair Work Commission was ill-advised'
  • hcamag.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'told the former ALDI store assistant to pay $1,230 toward the supermarket'
Documented The Commission said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, but held that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that assessing his eligibility was his responsibility.

Causal attribution. The Commission's assessment of the AI's role is stated as a possibility; it attributes the costs to his own unreasonable continuation.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'adopted AI as his quasi-legal advisor and then blindly submitted AI generated outputs as his own material'; 'Using AI to assist in drafting correspondence and even submissions is not, of itself, unreasonable'; 'responsibility to properly assess for himself whether he was eligible'
Documented An appeal was lodged against the costs decision.

Causal attribution. A note on the published decision; the appeal outcome is unknown.

Documented The Commission noted that Aldi's first written submissions addressed the same wrong question, and accepted that before 31 July 2026 he did not know the correct test.

Causal attribution. Context recorded by the Commission that limits the weight placed on the AI output before the warnings.

  • fwc.gov.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'first written submissions addressed the same wrong question'; 'did not know any better about the test to be applied under s.383'

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 full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 from fwc.gov.au (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. Applies to s1.

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); a trade-press report of the same decision, so it shares the decision's independence group. Applies to s2.

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

The applicant was employed at an Aldi supermarket by ALDI Stores and brought his claim in Australia's Fair Work Commission, which decided it in Sydney. Where he lives is not stated and is not used.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-18: Published because the Fair Work Commission's decision itself records that a dismissed worker's AI-drafted application and submissions argued an irrelevant date, that he continued after two warnings, and that he was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs. The decision was read in full. The AI's causal role is the Commission's stated possibility; the Commission placed responsibility on the applicant.

People described

A self-represented former store worker at an Aldi supermarket in Australia, ordered to pay part of his former employer's legal costs. He is a private person and is not named here.

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the applicant, who the decision says used AI to draft his application and every filing, and who was ordered to pay the costs. Aldi's own unrecovered legal fees are not counted as harm to a person.

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#unfair-dismissal#self-represented-litigant#ai-generated-filings#costs-order

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Fair Work Commission orders former Aldi worker to pay A$1,230 costs after his AI-drafted unfair dismissal claim kept arguing the wrong date. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-australia-fair-work-commission-orders-former-aldi-worker-to-pay-costs-after-ai-drafted-claim-argued-wrong-date

BibTeX

@misc{2026_australia_fair_work_commission_orders_former_aldi_worker_to_pay_costs_after_ai_drafted_claim_argued_wrong_date,
  title = {Fair Work Commission orders former Aldi worker to pay A\$1,230 costs after his AI-drafted unfair dismissal claim kept arguing the wrong date},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-australia-fair-work-commission-orders-former-aldi-worker-to-pay-costs-after-ai-drafted-claim-argued-wrong-date}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Canary Islands high court fines a lawyer 420 euros for an appeal citing 48 non-existent judgments that it says a general-purpose AI tool generated

The Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) fined a lawyer 420 euros for breaching the duty of truthfulness and good faith, after an appeal the lawyer filed contained 48 citations of Supreme Court judgments and a report of the General Council of the Judiciary that did not exist. According to the court's order, as described in its press release of 13 February 2026, the lawyer used a general-purpose AI tool to draft the appeal and did not check a single citation against the free public case-law database; the court's documentalist verified that the references were false. The court referred the matter to the lawyer's bar association for possible disciplinary action and set the fine at about half the annual cost of a legal-specific AI tool, taking into account that the lawyer admitted the facts and expressed remorse. The court had first flagged the citations in its judgment dismissing the appeal, reported on 5 January 2026, which opened a separate proceeding. The lawyer told the court of comments and mockery from colleagues after the case became public.

Medium Unidentified AI drafting tool

Massachusetts federal court revokes an out-of-state lawyer's admission and orders fees after briefs with false citations; the lawyer admitted AI drafted one

On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Colorado federal court fines two MyPillow defence lawyers $3,000 each over a brief with fabricated citations; lead counsel had admitted running it through AI

In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Austria: Federal Administrative Court fines a litigant EUR 200 for hundreds of pages of submissions it found were AI-generated and unlabelled

In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.

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