“I asked ChatGPT” doesn’t hold up in court, judge confirms
A party in a Queensland Supreme Court lease dispute tried to use ChatGPT’s answer to“What is the ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘medical centre’?” as evidence. The Courtrejected it outright.It’s a small case, but it highlights a much bigger trend. AI tools are now a normal part of howGold Coast business owners research problems, draft documents and prepare for disputes,and this decision is one of the clearest signals yet from a Queensland court about where thatcan be useful and where it isn’t. What happened in the case? The dispute in Inspired Medical Pty Ltd v S Mohindra Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 78 centred on aregistered lease and what the term “medical centre” actually meant under it. Inspired Medicaltried to support its position by putting before the Court answers generated by ChatGPT inresponse to questions, including what the phrase ordinarily means.The judge rejected this evidence entirely, noting that “medical centre” has no fixed technicalmeaning and is open to different interpretations depending on context, so an AI-generatedanswer wasn’t any more helpful than pulling a definition from a dictionary, a method courtshave long treated with caution for exactly this kind of composite phrase.More importantly, the Court was concerned that the accuracy of an AI-generated answerwas unknown and that, without checking the sources behind it, the answer could beunreliable. Ultimately, interpreting the lease was a task for the Court, applying establishedprinciples of contract law. Why does this case matter for Gold Coast business owners? This isn’t an isolated warning. Queensland’s courts have been building formal guidance ongenerative AI for a while. The Supreme Court’s Practice Direction Number 5 of 2025requires accuracy checks on references used in submissions, and Queensland Courts havepublished separate guidelines for both judicial officers and non-lawyers on responsible AIuse. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has issued similar guidanceafter several matters involving fabricated case citations or “hallucinated” legal references.The message across the guidance is consistent: using AI does not remove responsibility forwhat is put before a court or tribunal. References to cases, legislation and other authoritiesmust be checked, while factual evidence and legal arguments still need to satisfy theordinary rules that govern court proceedings.In a matter of Reece Hoverd v. M & JD Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1013 we acted for the employerin submissions successfully making a jurisdictional objection to a general protections claimwhere the applicant’s inappropriate reliance on AI led to his arguments relying on terms ofthe contract and provisions of the award that did not exist. As a result, the Commissioninvited a costs application to be made against the applicant. Where does AI actually help, and where does it create risk? For Gold Coast business owners handling contracts, leases and the occasional dispute, thepractical question isn’t “should I use AI” but “for what”. Here’s a rough guide: Where AI tools can help Where AI tools create risk The common thread is that AI can be useful for preliminary work, but its output should not beassumed to be accurate simply because it sounds confident and authoritative. What should Gold Coast businesses do differently? If you’re negotiating a commercial lease, reviewing a contract or heading into any kind ofdispute, treat an AI tool the way you’d treat a well-read but unqualified friend. It’s fine for afirst impression, but it is not a substitute for a Gold Coast business lawyer who can be heldto their advice.A commercial lawyer Gold Coast businesses actually rely on will tell you the same thing thisjudgment does: the wording of your specific contract, read in its specific context, is what acourt will look at, not a general answer pulled from the internet.A few common scenarios show why:If you’re a tenant or landlord and a lease term is genuinely ambiguous, that’s a job for a GoldCoast property lawyer or property litigation lawyer, not a chatbot. A court decides themeaning by weighing the specific wording, context and legal principle, exactly the kind ofjudgement this case confirms AI can’t be trusted with.If you’re assigning, exiting or negotiating a lease, commercial lease solicitors can assessthose issues in the context of your specific building, the wording of the particular clause andthe way courts have interpreted similar provisions, rather than relying on a general AI-generated response.If a disagreement is heading towards QCAT or the courts, a civil litigation lawyer needs realevidence and a real legal argument, not something generated by AI that you can’t standbehind or verify if it’s challenged. What happens next? As AI tools get better at sounding confident, Queensland courts are making clear thatconfidence isn’t the same as accuracy. For Gold Coast businesses, the lesson isn’t to avoidAI altogether, it’s to know which jobs it’s actually suited for and to bring in a Gold Coastlawyer before an AI-assisted assumption becomes the basis of a decision you can’t undo.Early advice often provides the clearest path forward. Whether you’re negotiating a lease, reviewing a contract or already in a dispute,contact the team at QBM Lawyers to speak with an experienced commercial lawyer onthe Gold Coast. Frequently Asked Questions Can you use ChatGPT as evidence in court in Queensland? Not on its own. In Inspired Medical Pty Ltd v S Mohindra Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 78, the Supreme Court rejected ChatGPT answers a party tried to rely on to argue what a lease term meant, because there was no way to check whether the answers were accurate. AI- generated material isn’t automatically ruled out, but it can’t be treated as reliable just because an AI tool produced it. Can I use AI tools like ChatGPT for legal research in Australia? Yes, using AI for general legal research is not illegal, and it can be a starting point for background reading or drafting. The risk is relying on it for anything that needs to be accurate and verifiable, such as case citations, legislation or contract interpretation, without checking it against a real source. Can AI make up fake legal cases or citations? Yes. AI tools have been found to generate (“hallucinate”) case citations, legislative references and legal authorities that look genuine but