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 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Coulson v. ASB Bank
High Court · Nov 11, 2025
New ZealandEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotescontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
The High Court of New Zealand found that Coulson’s prolix submissions misquoted the law and contained content suggesting significant use of artificial intelligence, but held that none of the arguments had merit. In the possession dispute, the court found service and prior orders sufficient, rejected the interim-injunction application, and invited submissions on whether the underlying proceeding should be struck out.
- 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
The High Court of New Zealand found that Coulson’s prolix submissions misquoted the law and contained content suggesting significant use of artificial intelligence, but held that none of the arguments had merit. In the possession dispute, the court found service and prior orders sufficient, rejected the interim-injunction application, and invited submissions on whether the underlying proceeding should be struck out.
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
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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Coulson v. ASB Bank?
- The High Court of New Zealand found that Coulson’s prolix submissions misquoted the law and contained content suggesting significant use of artificial intelligence, but held that none of the arguments had merit. In the possession dispute, the court found service and prior orders sufficient, rejected the interim-injunction application, and invited submissions on whether the underlying proceeding should be struck out.
- 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.