Ruling says one shouldn’t rely on AI to produce document persuasively addressing case’s real issues
In an estate proceeding, the Victorian Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal has denied leave to appeal sought by the deceased’s son, who apparently used artificial intelligence (AI) to prepare a written case that included multiple references to non-existent or irrelevant authorities.
Nikolaou v State Trustees Limited [2026] VSCA 153 revolved around the estate of a man who died on 22 August 2005, survived by his wife and three children, including the applicant, who was the second child.
In 2009, the deceased’s wife obtained a grant of letters of administration of intestacy and became the estate administrator and trustee. In 2017, State Trustees Limited received an appointment as her guardian.
In January 2022, the court discharged the wife as administrator and trustee due to her advanced age, declining health, and substantial cognitive impairment. The court instead appointed the applicant as estate administrator and trustee.
On 22 December 2023, the court discharged the applicant as administrator and trustee and replaced him with State Trustees. For over 18 years after the death, the estate proceeded on the basis that the deceased had passed away intestate. The estate had yet to undergo a final distribution.
On 19 March 2024, the applicant filed a summons seeking to revoke the grant of letters of administration based on a copy of a will dated 12 October 1990. This will, which appointed the deceased’s first child as estate executor and trustee, was much more favourable to the applicant than a distribution on intestacy.
Before the associate judge, the parties agreed that the 1990 will existed, was duly executed, and revoked all prior wills.
On 10 October 2025, the associate judge dismissed the applicant’s summons and refused to revoke the grant of letters of administration. The judge held that the applicant failed to overcome the presumption that the deceased had destroyed the copy of the 1990 will with the intention of revoking it.
Based on the evidence of the solicitor who prepared the 1990 will, the associate judge determined that the deceased had custody of the 1990 will and that the copy of the 1990 will was a true copy of the original.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal from the associate judge’s order dismissing his summons.
The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria refused the application for leave to appeal. The appeal court saw no merit in the leave application under s 14D(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and no prospects of success in the applicant’s proposed appeal.
Regarding the applicant’s apparent AI use, the appeal court acknowledged that litigants could utilise AI to help prepare written submissions. However, the appeal court ruled that litigants should:
The appeal court noted that the evidence of the solicitor who prepared the 1990 will did not bear on the important issue of what happened to the will after it left his office.
Based on its own reading of the evidence in this case, the appeal court held that the associate judge correctly concluded that the applicant failed to discharge his onus of rebutting the presumption of destruction and correctly refused to revoke the letters of administration.
The appeal court added that the associate judge gave a clear and compelling explanation for why he rejected the applicant’s evidence and preferred the evidence of a solicitor who had acted for the deceased’s wife in a few matters.
The appeal court saw many reasons not to believe the applicant’s implausible evidence about the 1990 will. The appeal court found that:
