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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd
Court of Appeal of New Zealand · Nov 21, 2024
New ZealandEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand resolved a multi-party commercial appeal and noted that the self-represented appellant had withdrawn an earlier memorandum after opposing counsel drew attention to its apparent use of generative AI. The court said the use had not initially been disclosed and was evident from references to apparently nonexistent cases, then directed readers to the judiciary's AI guidance for non-lawyers.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Referred to guidance about AI; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Undisclosed AI use triggers referral to guidance even without sanctions — always disclose the tool when citations fail.
Why this matter is tracked
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand resolved a multi-party commercial appeal and noted that the self-represented appellant had withdrawn an earlier memorandum after opposing counsel drew attention to its apparent use of generative AI. The court said the use had not initially been disclosed and was evident from references to apparently nonexistent cases, then directed readers to the judiciary's AI guidance for non-lawyers.
Operational lesson
Undisclosed AI use triggers referral to guidance even without sanctions — always disclose the tool when citations fail.
Record details
CourtCourt of Appeal of New Zealand
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 21, 2024
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeReferred to guidance about AI
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
Referred to guidance about AI
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 | Mr Wikeley filed and then withdrew a 10 September 2024 memorandum that cited apparently non-existent cases, attributed by the Court to undisclosed use of generative AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd?
- The Court of Appeal of New Zealand resolved a multi-party commercial appeal and noted that the self-represented appellant had withdrawn an earlier memorandum after opposing counsel drew attention to its apparent use of generative AI. The court said the use had not initially been disclosed and was evident from references to apparently nonexistent cases, then directed readers to the judiciary's AI guidance for non-lawyers.
- Why does Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd matter for legal AI risk?
- Undisclosed AI use triggers referral to guidance even without sanctions — always disclose the tool when citations fail.
- What does the public record establish about Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd?
- 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 Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd 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.