Chen v. Goodmore Investments & Tawa
Supreme Court · May 1, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Record ID
- chen-v-goodmore-investments-tawa-2026-05-01
- Observed outcome
- All applications for leave to appeal, reply submissions, and stays of execution were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.
- Known monetary consequence
- NZ$5,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the applicant's motions and identified that she had submitted fabricated and mischaracterized case law, likely generated by AI. While the court warned that such conduct could warrant sanctions for contempt or obstruction of justice, it did not impose additional penalties beyond standard costs.
The Court reasoned that the applicant's reliance on non-existent or mischaracterized authorities undermined the administration of justice. It noted that while such misuse could constitute contempt or obstruction of justice, it opted not to impose specific sanctions beyond costs given the overall circumstances of the case.
This case illustrates the judicial response to AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings within a high-court setting. It highlights the court's expectation for rigorous verification of authorities and the potential for severe consequences, including contempt findings, for failing to ensure the accuracy of cited legal sources.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- generative artificial intelligence application
- Known monetary consequence
- NZ$5,000
- Procedural posture
- The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed applications for leave to appeal, reply submissions, stays of execution, and the admission of new evidence.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified the citations as hallucinations of a generative AI application.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all legal citations to ensure they correspond to existing, correctly identified case law.
- Review all AI-generated research outputs against primary legal databases before inclusion in court filings.
- Establish internal quality control procedures to detect mischaracterized or hallucinated authorities in legal submissions.
- Monitor court guidance regarding the use of generative AI to ensure compliance with evolving standards of practice.