Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Chen v. Goodmore Investments & Tawa
Supreme Court · May 1, 2026
New ZealandEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Ms Chen cited 'Peterson v Forbes 1997 2 NZLR 216 (CA)', which does not exist; the Court noted the closest real reported case was Tui Food Ltd v New Zealand Milk Corp Ltd [1997] 2 NZLR 214.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Supreme Court, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Ms Chen cited 'Peterson v Forbes 1997 2 NZLR 216 (CA)', which does not exist; the Court noted the closest real reported case was Tui Food Ltd v New Zealand Milk Corp Ltd [1997] 2 NZLR 214.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Supreme Court, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtSupreme Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 1, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Ms Chen cited 'Peterson v Forbes 1997 2 NZLR 216 (CA)', which does not exist; the Court noted the closest real reported case was Tui Food Ltd v New Zealand Milk Corp Ltd [1997] 2 NZLR 214.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Ms Chen cited 'Vélez v Ticketmaster NZ Limited 2023 NZSC 113', which does not exist; the Court noted the neutral citation [2023] NZSC 113 actually corresponds to Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Ms Chen relied on Dorchester Finance Ltd v Deloitte [2012] NZCA 226 as authority on CCCFA oppression, but the Court observed the real case is about contract interpretation and was mischaracterised.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Chen v. Goodmore Investments & Tawa?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Ms Chen cited 'Peterson v Forbes 1997 2 NZLR 216 (CA)', which does not exist; the Court noted the closest real reported case was Tui Food Ltd v New Zealand Milk Corp Ltd [1997] 2 NZLR 214.
- Why does Chen v. Goodmore Investments & Tawa matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Supreme Court, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Chen v. Goodmore Investments & Tawa?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Chen v. Goodmore Investments & Tawa summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.