Jones v. Family Court at Whangarei
Supreme Court · Feb 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Record ID
- jones-v-family-court-at-whangarei-2026-02-11
- Observed outcome
- The Court granted an extension of time, dismissed the application for leave to appeal, and issued a warning regarding the misuse of AI in legal submissions.
- Known monetary consequence
- NZ$500
Why this matter warrants attention
The Supreme Court of New Zealand issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for submitting AI-generated legal authorities containing fabricated citations. The Court emphasized that litigants are responsible for the accuracy of all information provided and that reliance on unverified AI outputs may constitute obstruction of justice or contempt of court.
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.
New Zealand Supreme Court flags real-case-name / wrong-citation pairs as AI hallucinations — verify the neutral citation, not just the name.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI chatbot (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- NZ$500
- Procedural posture
- Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand following unsuccessful proceedings in the Family Court, High Court, and Court of Appeal.
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 use of an AI application to generate submissions.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.