Affinity Education hit with $2.5m lawsuit from whistleblower – but case hits a hurdle after judge slams her use of AI
A whistleblower childcare worker is suing a major education provider for $2.5m – but the self-represented litigant hit trouble after using AI to prepare her claim.
A whistleblower early childhood educator is suing Affinity Education for $2.5m, claiming she was dismissed after raising serious concerns about the mistreatment of children.
The woman, Johanna Hugo, claims she was bullied and dismissed due to “false accusations” based on “fictional file notes” after she lodged a Fair Work Commission claim.
The case is being heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, with Judge Tass Liveris expressing concern about Ms Hugo’s use of AI in preparing her submissions.
Judge Liveris said Ms Hugo’s submissions “refer to and cite non-existent authorities” which was a serious issue.
According to court documents, Ms Hugo started working at Milestones Early Learning in Darwin in June 2024 but was interviewed by childcare regulators in October about a number of incidents, including claims an educator incited more than 20 children to hit and spit on a child.
She was fired three weeks later in November 2024 due to alleged serious and ongoing “performance issues”.
Affinity Education is one of the country’s largest childcare for-profit chains which has been the subject of repeated regulatory action in a number of states.
Victorian accused pedophile Joshua Brown worked in 23 businesses owned by Affinity Education between 2017 and 2025.
Judge Liveris noted that the submissions from Ms Hugo, who is self-represented, reveal “serious misunderstandings of the law”.
“The court has repeatedly and increasingly emphasised the cautions required in the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings by legal practitioners and parties, particularly where the use of artificial intelligence is not disclosed, material produced through artificial intelligence is not verified and no certification as to accuracy is given,” he said in a judgment handed down on Thursday.
Ms Hugo originally applied for compensation of $533,243.11, claiming the childcare company took adverse actions, did not follow legal procedures and did not properly assess her performance.
She subsequently expanded her claim to include compensation, economic loss, non-economic loss and aggravated damages, totalling more than $2.5m. She is also seeking a public apology from Affinity Education.
Affinity Education sought security from Ms Hugo of $32,500 – the cost of two days in court – because of the way the company’s lawyers claim she has conducted herself during the proceedings. They argue she may leave the country, making recovery of any costs difficult.
Ms Hugo argued she did not have $32,500 and said paying such an amount would hamper her ability to seek justice.
The company has also sought to strike out portions of Ms Hugo’s claims relating to correspondence about a $12,500 settlement offer in February 2025.
In a judgment handed down on September 18, Judge Liveris agreed that such communication should be removed from the case, but did not make Ms Hugo pay the $32,500 surety.
Judge Liveris noted that “many of the circumstances identified by Affinity Education Group show an inadequate conduct of these proceedings by Ms Hugo”.
He also said the quantification of her claim was “a concern”.
“She has sought damages including future loss of income for a projected 10-year period,” he said.
“Plainly, Ms Hugo is of the view that her inability to secure employment after termination is as a result of reputational harm caused to her by Affinity Education Group,” Judge Liveris said.
Ms Hugo was interviewed by the ABC in March and was quoted as saying: “My experience at Affinity was basically the worst experience that I’ve ever had working with children, any centre, anywhere.”
In a statement, Affinity Education said: “The proceedings are continuing, and it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
More Coverage
Originally published as Affinity Education hit with $2.5m lawsuit from whistleblower – but case hits a hurdle after judge slams her use of AI
