HomeCasesJones v. Family Court at Whangarei

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei

Supreme Court · Feb 11, 2026

New ZealandEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | "Awatere Huata v Prebble [2002] 3 NZLR 827" — example of a real case name paired with an incorrect citation; Court found it to be a hallucinated/erroneous citation. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | "Awatere Huata v Prebble [2002] 3 NZLR 827" — example of a real case name paired with an incorrect citation; Court found it to be a hallucinated/erroneous citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | "Baird v R [2013] NZSC 120" — cited in submissions with an incorrect citation; Court identified this as an example of AI-produced incorrect authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | "Teddy v Police [2015] NZSC 62" — real case name combined with an incorrect citation; Court treated it as an AI-generated hallucinated authority and noted the genuine case/citation combination was not directly relevant.
Why it matters now: New Zealand Supreme Court flags real-case-name / wrong-citation pairs as AI hallucinations — verify the neutral citation, not just the name.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

New Zealand Supreme Court flags real-case-name / wrong-citation pairs as AI hallucinations — verify the neutral citation, not just the name.

Record details

CourtSupreme Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateFeb 11, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

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 | "Awatere Huata v Prebble [2002] 3 NZLR 827" — example of a real case name paired with an incorrect citation; Court found it to be a hallucinated/erroneous citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | "Baird v R [2013] NZSC 120" — cited in submissions with an incorrect citation; Court identified this as an example of AI-produced incorrect authority.
Misrepresented: Case Law | "Teddy v Police [2015] NZSC 62" — real case name combined with an incorrect citation; Court treated it as an AI-generated hallucinated authority and noted the genuine case/citation combination was not directly relevant.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei?: Fabricated: Case Law | "Awatere Huata v Prebble [2002] 3 NZLR 827" — example of a real case name paired with an incorrect citation; Court found it to be a hallucinated/erroneous citation. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei matter for legal AI risk?: New Zealand Supreme Court flags real-case-name / wrong-citation pairs as AI hallucinations — verify the neutral citation, not just the name.
What does the public record establish about Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei?: 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 Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei 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.

Chen v. Goodmore Investments & TawaSupreme Court · May 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Herzel Hagigi v. Official ReceiverSupreme Court · Dec 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Husni Al Qawasmi Association et al. v. Ziad Oweisat (Sharfi) et al.Supreme Court · Jan 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Tsafrir v. GoldbergSupreme Court · Dec 14, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.SC Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

New Zealand Supreme Court flags real-case-name / wrong-citation pairs as AI hallucinations — verify the neutral citation, not just the name.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | "Awatere Huata v Prebble [2002] 3 NZLR 827" — example of a real case name paired with an incorrect citation; Court found it to be a hallucinated/erroneous citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | "Baird v R [2013] NZSC 120" — cited in submissions with an incorrect citation; Court identified this as an example of AI-produced incorrect authority.

Misrepresented: Case Law | "Teddy v Police [2015] NZSC 62" — real case name combined with an incorrect citation; Court treated it as an AI-generated hallucinated authority and noted the genuine case/citation combination was not directly relevant.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei?

Why does Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei matter for legal AI risk?

New Zealand Supreme Court flags real-case-name / wrong-citation pairs as AI hallucinations — verify the neutral citation, not just the name.

What does the public record establish about Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei?

Which source supports this Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei 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.