Self-represented litigant makes an AI-generated claim and is ordered to pay Aldi’s costs
The Fair Work Commission ordered a self-represented former Aldi employee to pay $1230 towards his former employer's legal costs after he relied on artificial intelligence (AI) to make an unfair dismissal claim with no reasonable prospects of success.[1]
The decision comes amid growing concern about the use of AI in the Fair Work Commission and courts more broadly. The Commission’s Executive Director recently told a Senate committee for education and employment legislation that early research indicates 'around 40 to 50 per cent of people were telling us that AI had been used to make an application to the commission'.[2]
This decision is a good reminder that while AI may make it easier to prepare and pursue a claim, litigants remain responsible for critically assessing the material they put before the Commission.
Key takeaways for employers
- The Commission is alive to the rise of AI-generated applications and the burden they can impose on employers forced to defend unmeritorious claims. The Commission has announced today that from 20 October 2026, litigants will be required to disclose their use of AI in all claims, and declare that they have checked their documents and that they have made necessary changes so that the documents are accurate (amongst other things). [3]
- Flag potential costs consequences early. Where an employer suspects a litigant has relied on AI to generate a claim that has little or no merit, putting them on notice of the potential costs consequences of pursuing that claim may encourage early discontinuance, help resolve the matter efficiently and also strengthen the prospects of any subsequent costs application.
Why was the unfair dismissal claim thrown out?
To be eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim, the employee, Mr Khan, needed to have served a minimum employment period of six months with Aldi at the time of his dismissal.
Mr Khan was dismissed three days short of the minimum employment period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and he lodged an AI-generated application that same evening.
Despite multiple warnings from the Commission explaining that eligibility turns on when notice is given (not when it takes effect), Mr Khan’s AI-generated submissions failed to engage with this guidance.
He ultimately conceded ineligibility at the hearing and discontinued his application.
Why did the Fair Work Commission make an order for costs?
The Fair Work Commission is a ‘bear own costs’ jurisdiction, meaning that all parties must pay their own legal costs except in very limited circumstances.
Although costs are rarely awarded, Deputy President Easton nevertheless ordered costs under section 400A of the Fair Work Act. The provision applies specifically to unfair dismissal proceedings and allows the Commission to make a costs order where a party's unreasonable act or omission causes the other party to incur costs.
The Deputy President found that Mr Khan's failure to critically assess his AI-generated materials against the Commission's clear guidance constituted an unreasonable continuation of the matter. The Deputy President exercised his discretion to make the costs order against Mr Khan as a self-represented litigant.
The order was expressly intended as a deterrent against similar conduct, with the Deputy President commenting that ‘the making of a costs order now will deter Mr Khan, and hopefully other applicants in the same position, from acting unreasonably’.[4]
What does the decision mean for employers?
The decision does not mean that using AI to prepare a Fair Work Commission application will itself attract a costs order. Rather, it reinforces that litigants remain responsible for the claims and submissions they make, including where AI has been used to prepare them.
For employers defending claims that appear to be AI-generated and have little or no reasonable prospect of success, raising the substantive deficiencies and potential costs consequences early may help bring the matter to an earlier resolution or support a later costs application.
How we can help
If you need assistance responding to employment-related claims, including unfair dismissal claims, or managing proceedings before the Fair Work Commission, please contact our Employment and Workplace Relations team.
This article was drafted with the assistance of Lucy Korman, Law Graduate.
[1] Sadnan Khan v Aldi Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3144.
[2] Evidence to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 2 June 2026, 83 (Ms Bright, Executive Director, Fair Work Commission) Education and Employment Legislation Committee_2026_06_02.pdf;fileType=application/pdf.
[3] The citation is Justice Hatcher, President, 'Use of AI in Fair Work Commission Proceedings' (President's Statement, Fair Work Commission, 24 August 2026) President’s statement - Use of AI in Fair Work Commission proceedings.
[4] Sadnan Khan v Aldi Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3144 at [67].
Contacts
