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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Roux v. van Greunen
High Court · Jan 29, 2026
South AfricaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Relied on a non-existent judgment 'Matshoba and Another v Acting Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others' (applicant produced a 'compiled' Word document); court could not locate the reported or neutral citation and concluded it was an AI hallucination.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Relied on a non-existent judgment 'Matshoba and Another v Acting Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others' (applicant produced a 'compiled' Word document); court could not locate the reported or neutral citation and concluded it was an AI hallucination.
- Why it matters now
- A 'compiled' Word document of a judgment is a red flag; courts expect neutral citations traceable to official reporters.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Relied on a non-existent judgment 'Matshoba and Another v Acting Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others' (applicant produced a 'compiled' Word document); court could not locate the reported or neutral citation and concluded it was an AI hallucination.
Operational lesson
A 'compiled' Word document of a judgment is a red flag; courts expect neutral citations traceable to official reporters.
Record details
CourtHigh Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 29, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Relied on a non-existent judgment 'Matshoba and Another v Acting Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others' (applicant produced a 'compiled' Word document); court could not locate the reported or neutral citation and concluded it was an AI hallucination.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Roux v. van Greunen?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Relied on a non-existent judgment 'Matshoba and Another v Acting Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others' (applicant produced a 'compiled' Word document); court could not locate the reported or neutral citation and concluded it was an AI hallucination.
- Why does Roux v. van Greunen matter for legal AI risk?
- A 'compiled' Word document of a judgment is a red flag; courts expect neutral citations traceable to official reporters.
- What does the public record establish about Roux v. van Greunen?
- 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 Roux v. van Greunen 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.