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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
John Coulsto et al. v Elliott
The High Court · Dec 10, 2024
IrelandEditorial impact: lowpro secontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Defendants' written submissions asserted Section 19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 had been repealed by the 2009 Act, eliminating statutory power to appoint a receiver; court found this claim false and noted s.19 was reinstated by the 2013 Act. Outcome: Court rejected the submission as fallacious. Defendants' written submissions (not argued at trial) advanced that s.19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 had been repealed by the 2009 Act, undermining the power to appoint a receiver. The court found the argument fallacious, noted s.19 was reinstated by the 2013 Act, and observed the submissions were likely produced by a generative AI or an unqualified adviser.
- Why the court cared
- The linked record identifies pro se and contract and records Court rejected the submission as fallacious. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
- Why it matters now
- Repealed-law claims from AI drafts collapse instantly — always confirm statutes are still in force before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Defendants' written submissions asserted Section 19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 had been repealed by the 2009 Act, eliminating statutory power to appoint a receiver; court found this claim false and noted s.19 was reinstated by the 2013 Act. Outcome: Court rejected the submission as fallacious. Defendants' written submissions (not argued at trial) advanced that s.19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 had been repealed by the 2009 Act, undermining the power to appoint a receiver. The court found the argument fallacious, noted s.19 was reinstated by the 2013 Act, and observed the submissions were likely produced by a generative AI or an unqualified adviser.
Operational lesson
Repealed-law claims from AI drafts collapse instantly — always confirm statutes are still in force before filing.
Record details
CourtThe High Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 10, 2024
IM
AI toolimplied
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCourt rejected the submission as fallacious
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
implied is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Court rejected the submission as fallacious
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.
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Defendants' written submissions asserted Section 19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 had been repealed by the 2009 Act, eliminating statutory power to appoint a receiver; court found this claim false and noted s.19 was reinstated by the 2013 Act.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in John Coulsto et al. v Elliott?
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Defendants' written submissions asserted Section 19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 had been repealed by the 2009 Act, eliminating statutory power to appoint a receiver; court found this claim false and noted s.19 was reinstated by the 2013 Act. Outcome: Court rejected the submission as fallacious. Defendants' written submissions (not argued at trial) advanced that s.19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 had been repealed by the 2009 Act, undermining the power to appoint a receiver. The court found the argument fallacious, noted s.19 was reinstated by the 2013 Act, and observed the submissions were likely produced by a generative AI or an unqualified adviser.
- Why does John Coulsto et al. v Elliott matter for legal AI risk?
- Repealed-law claims from AI drafts collapse instantly — always confirm statutes are still in force before filing.
- What does the public record establish about John Coulsto et al. v Elliott?
- 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 John Coulsto et al. v Elliott 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.