AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesLMN v. STC (No. 2)
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 90/100. 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

LMN v. STC (No. 2)

Employment Court of New Zealand · Mar 17, 2025

New ZealandEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Employment Court of New Zealand issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after she cited a non-existent case in her submissions. The court identified the citation as a hallucination likely resulting from the use of generative AI and reminded the litigant of the necessity to verify all AI-generated information before filing.

Why the court cared
The court identified that the cited case 'Fowlie v Stonex (No 2) [2015] NZEmpC 94' does not exist and attributed the error to the plaintiff's reliance on unverified generative AI output.
Why it matters now
NZ courts are now issuing express warnings on generative AI reliance even without monetary penalty.

Why this matter is tracked

In an interlocutory judgment, the Employment Court of New Zealand addressed a self-represented plaintiff's application to vary a security-for-costs order. During her submissions, the plaintiff cited a non-existent case, 'Fowlie v Stonex (No 2) [2015] NZEmpC 94', to argue that the court considers financial constraints in procedural rulings. The presiding judge noted that the case does not exist and explicitly reminded the plaintiff that information generated by artificial intelligence must be verified before being filed in court documents. The court referenced official judiciary guidelines for non-lawyers regarding the use of generative AI. Ultimately, the court granted the plaintiff's request for an extension of time to pay security for costs, subject to a revised payment schedule, while awarding the defendant $500 in costs.

Operational lesson

NZ courts are now issuing express warnings on generative AI reliance even without monetary penalty.

Record details

CourtEmployment Court of New Zealand
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMar 17, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative AI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court granted the plaintiff's request for an extension of time to pay security for costs under a revised schedule, declined her request to file further submissions, and ordered her to pay $500 in costs to the defendant.
Known amountNZ$500
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court explicitly referenced the plaintiff's use of generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Interlocutory judgment on applications to vary a security-for-costs order and for leave to file further submissions.

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. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case to argue the Court considers financial constraints; the Court stated no such case exists and warned about relying on generative AI outputs.

Questions this record answers

What happened in LMN v. STC (No. 2)?
The Employment Court of New Zealand issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after she cited a non-existent case in her submissions. The court identified the citation as a hallucination likely resulting from the use of generative AI and reminded the litigant of the necessity to verify all AI-generated information before filing.
Why does LMN v. STC (No. 2) matter for legal AI risk?
NZ courts are now issuing express warnings on generative AI reliance even without monetary penalty.
What does the public record establish about LMN v. STC (No. 2)?
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 LMN v. STC (No. 2) 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.

Santos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Heywood v State of Queensland (Department of Education)Queensland IRC · Aug 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cecile Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et al.C.D. California · Aug 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Mary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.N.D. New York · Aug 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Natashah Al-Ali v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.E.D. Michigan · Jul 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)