The technology produced legal precedents that didn't exist, the Commission revealed
An employee used an AI legal assistant to challenge his dismissal, but the technology fabricated case law that didn't exist.
Jason Riley joined Nuvei Australia Merchant Services in September 2022 as an Account Manager. During his job interview, he disclosed previous mental health challenges and burnout from his last employer. By July 2023, he moved into an Account Executive role, a higher-pressure position focused on growing the business and hitting sales targets.
Within months, Riley's mental health deteriorated. He took increasing amounts of sick leave through the second half of 2023. On February 12, 2024, he began an extended medical absence that would stretch for over sixteen months. He exhausted his paid leave within weeks and stayed on unpaid leave from March 7, 2024 onwards.
Throughout his entire absence, Riley submitted WorkCover Certificates of Capacity to Nuvei. During the Fair Work Commission hearing, he admitted every single certificate showed he had no capacity for employment. None provided any prognosis about when he might recover or return to work.
After Riley had been absent for more than a year, Nuvei's General Manager initiated a review process in February 2025. By June 2025, the company sent Riley a show cause letter, explaining they were considering termination because his extended absence showed no sign of ending and he appeared unable to perform his role with no prospect of returning.
Riley responded in writing and attended a meeting on June 16, 2025, with a union representative. He told the employer he was "doing a lot better" and his health was "in a different place." But he stopped short of saying he could actually return to work, noting he wasn't a medical professional. The meeting lasted fifteen minutes.
Three days later, Nuvei terminated his employment on June 19, 2025. Riley filed an unfair dismissal claim on July 8, 2025, representing himself.
That's when things got interesting. Commissioner Redford revealed in the January 19, 2026 decision that "Mr Riley made clear that he had obtained assistance in the presentation of his case by an Artificial Intelligence model, which was 'legally trained'."
The problem? The AI invented legal precedents that didn't exist. The Commissioner noted that "some of the references made by Mr Riley to particular legal principles or authorities may have been AI hallucinations and lacked any legal basis."
Riley argued Nuvei should have proactively sought more medical information, perhaps through an independent examination. He claimed WorkCover certificates were just administrative paperwork without real diagnostic value.
The Commission rejected this argument. Commissioner Redford found Nuvei had medical evidence showing Riley couldn't work, had given him multiple opportunities to provide additional information or demonstrate capacity to return, and had followed proper procedure. While Riley's comment about feeling better deserved consideration, it fell far short of showing he could actually do his job, especially against continuing medical certificates showing zero work capacity.
The Commission dismissed the application, finding the dismissal wasn't harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Despite the AI mishaps, the Commissioner observed Riley's overall presentation was "competent and professional."
The case shows that employers can lawfully terminate after extended medical absence when employees provide no credible timeline for return, assuming proper process is followed. It also signals a new reality: workplaces should expect more unfair dismissal claims powered by AI tools, complete with the credibility problems artificial intelligence can create when it invents facts.
