Filings with 'apparent hallucinations', a rejected subpoena - and errors in Stantec's own sums
A former HR professional's court fight with Stantec was “always doomed to fail,” the Federal Court found. Now he owes the company $45,000.
On September 24, 2026, the court ordered the man, who had been employed by Stantec Australia in what it called “a professional human resources position,” to pay the company's legal costs of the case, fixed at $45,000 excluding GST.
That is a rare result in a Fair Work case.
Under the Fair Work Act, each side usually covers its own legal bills. A court can make one party pay the other's costs only in narrow situations, such as when a case is brought “without reasonable cause,” or when one side's unreasonable conduct runs up the other side's costs.
Stantec argued both applied. The court agreed.
The costs ruling followed a September 15, 2026 judgment in which the court dismissed the former HR professional's bid to have it review two Fair Work Commission decisions.
His case was “incoherent in many respects,” the court said. Many of his arguments raised points he had never put to the Commission, so they could not show a legal error by it. His grounds, written evidence and submissions also failed to line up, leaving the court to piece his case together from “multiple conflicting documents.”
Then there was the AI question.
The court said his documents contained “apparent hallucinations,” including references to written...
Posted 17 minutes ago OREM, Utah — A Utah man has sued political commentator and podcaster Candace Owens for allegedly falsely linking him to the shooting death of Charlie Kirk. In the lawsuit fil...