Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166 (11 September 2025)

🔹 Introduction

In Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed a father’s appeal from parenting orders made in his absence. He alleged denial of procedural fairness, judicial bias, and reliance on flawed evidence. Notably, the Court also examined his improper use of generative AI in preparing documents that cited fictitious cases. The decision reinforces limits on appeals, the necessity of courtroom discipline, and the dangers of misusing AI in legal proceedings.

🔹 Facts and Issues

• The appellant (father) appealed against parenting orders made after he was excluded from trial for repeated disruptions.
• He argued he was denied procedural fairness and the judge was biased.
• He also challenged the Family Report, subpoenas, and affidavit evidence.
• The appellant had used generative AI to draft documents, which cited non-existent cases and potentially breached confidentiality provisions under Pt XIVB Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Issues for the Court:

1. Was the appellant denied procedural fairness by being excluded from trial?
2. Did the primary judge display actual or apprehended bias?
3. Were evidentiary rulings flawed or one-sided?
4. What are the implications of using AI-generated, unverified legal material in litigation?

🔹 Rule (Law)

• Procedural fairness: Parties must have a fair opportunity to be heard (Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550).
• Court management powers: Judges may exclude parties who disrupt proceedings (Aon Risk Services v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175).
• Bias test: Would a fair-minded observer reasonably apprehend bias? (Ebner v Official Trustee (2000) 205 CLR 337).
• Duty not to mislead: Litigants (and lawyers) must ensure documents are accurate; misuse of AI risks breaching duties and confidentiality (May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178).
• Appeals: Errors of discretion must be demonstrated; mere dissatisfaction is insufficient (Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design (2006) 229 CLR 577).

🔹 Application (Law to Facts)

1. Procedural fairness:

• The father had multiple adjournments, opportunities to file affidavits, and was warned repeatedly about his behaviour.
• His exclusion occurred only after continued outbursts despite breaks and warnings.
• The Court held any lost opportunity was forfeited by his conduct, not denied by the judge.

1. Bias allegations:

• The appellant claimed disparaging remarks went unchecked, but no evidence supported this.
• Cross-examination about his criminal history was legitimate, not prejudicial.
• No bias established under Ebner.

1. Evidence challenges:

• The Family Report acknowledged limitations but was balanced.
• Subpoenaed police records showed convictions for threats, stalking, and family violence.
• Judge relied on independent evidence (bank transfers with abusive messages) to support family violence findings.

1. Use of AI:

• The appellant admitted to using AI, which produced fictitious cases.
• The Court cited UK and NSW warnings (Ayinde; May v Costaras) about unverified AI research.
• Such conduct risks misleading the Court, wasting time, and breaching confidentiality.

🔹 Analysis of Judgment & Reasoning

The Full Court concluded:

• Procedural fairness was provided; the father forfeited his right to participate through disruptive conduct.
• No bias or error was demonstrated; cross-examination was proper and judicial restraint was maintained.
• Evidence was properly admitted; findings of family violence were independently justified.
• Misuse of AI was criticised as a breach of duty and a potential violation of Pt XIVB, undermining confidence in justice.

Appeal dismissed.

🔹 Take-Home Lesson

• Courts will not tolerate litigants who disrupt proceedings; repeated warnings and failure to comply can justify exclusion.
• Appeals require demonstrable error, not dissatisfaction or misunderstanding.
• AI tools cannot replace verified legal research—unverified use may mislead the court and breach confidentiality.
• Lesson: Self-represented litigants and lawyers alike must respect court processes, rely only on authoritative legal sources, and maintain discipline in proceedings.