I am forwarding herewith an amended submission for the Applicant.
I acknowledge the errors identified by the respondent regarding the case law citations and purported quotes from the tribunal's decision in my submission dated 25 October 2024. These errors were unintentional, and I deeply regret them.
Despite these mistakes, they do not affect the substantive issues raised in the application for judicial review, which reveals significant flaws in the AAT's decision-making process. This attached amended submission has corrected my original submission dated 24 October 2024.
Could you please confirm if His Honor is willing to accept this amended submission or If I should seek leave from His Honor to file it on the hearing date that is scheduled On the 25 November 2024. Upon acceptance of this amended document I will notify the respondent’s Solicitors accordingly.
I do apologise for submitting this late amended submissions.
Your assistance is this matter is very much appreciated.
6 On 19 November 2024, my Associate emailed the parties explaining that it was not appropriate for a party or their legal representative to communicate with the Court without the consent of the other party, nor was it appropriate for a party or legal representatives to communicate with the Court without copying in the other party.
7 In response, the ALR emailed the Court apologising and stating that the error was unintentional.
8 The final hearing, which was initially scheduled for 25 November 2024, had to be vacated and a directions hearing was instead listed to raise with the parties the Court’s concerns about the conduct of the ALR and to discuss with the parties an achievable timetable to progress the substantive judicial review proceedings.
9 At the directions hearing, on 25 November 2024, the ALR appeared on behalf of the applicant. The applicant appeared over Microsoft Teams and was assisted by an interpreter in the Tongan and English languages. Ms Pieri, a solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Minister.
10 Relevantly, the Court inquired as to whether the written submissions provided by ALR had been generated using an artificial intelligence (AI) program. The ALR stated that he had used AI to identify Australian cases, but it provided him with non-existent case law. The Court expressed its concern about the ALR’s conduct and his failure to check the accuracy of what had been filed with the Court, noting that a considerable amount time had been spent by the Court and my Associates checking the citations and attempting to find the purported authorities.
