Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesCoulson v. ASB Bank
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Coulson v. ASB Bank

High Court · Nov 11, 2025

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The High Court of New Zealand declined the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction. The court identified that the plaintiff's submissions contained content suggesting the significant use of artificial intelligence and misquoted the law, ultimately finding the arguments meritless and the proceeding an abuse of process.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Legal Norm
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in High Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiff, Stewart Coulson, sought an interim injunction to prevent ASB Bank from exercising its power of sale over a property. The court found that the plaintiff's submissions were prolix, misquoted the law, and contained content suggesting the significant use of artificial intelligence. The court determined that the plaintiff's arguments lacked merit, noting that the application constituted an inappropriate collateral challenge to a prior summary judgment. The court declined the interim injunction, finding no serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant. The court further invited submissions on whether the underlying proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in High Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CourtHigh Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 11, 2025
UN
AI toolunspecified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe application for an interim injunction was declined, and the court invited submissions regarding the potential strike-out of the underlying proceeding.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court noted content suggesting the significant use of artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

The court heard an application for an interim injunction and considered whether to strike out the underlying proceeding on its own motion.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. False Quotes: Legal Norm

Questions this record answers

What happened in Coulson v. ASB Bank?
The High Court of New Zealand declined the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction. The court identified that the plaintiff's submissions contained content suggesting the significant use of artificial intelligence and misquoted the law, ultimately finding the arguments meritless and the proceeding an abuse of process.
Why does Coulson v. ASB Bank matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in High Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Coulson v. ASB Bank?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Coulson v. ASB Bank 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.