Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd
Court of Appeal of New Zealand · Nov 21, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand noted that a self-represented litigant used generative AI to draft a court memorandum, which included fabricated case law. The litigant withdrew the filing after opposing counsel challenged it. The Court did not issue a formal sanction but referred the litigant to the judiciary's official guidance on AI use 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 addressed a multi-party commercial appeal involving a self-represented appellant, Mr. Wikeley. During the proceedings, Mr. Wikeley filed a memorandum on 10 September 2024, which he subsequently withdrew after opposing counsel identified the apparent use of generative AI. The Court noted that the AI usage was not initially disclosed and was evidenced by the inclusion of citations to non-existent cases. The Court declined to impose sanctions for this specific conduct, instead directing the appellant to the judiciary's published guidelines regarding the use of generative AI by non-lawyers. The judgment primarily focused on complex international anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions related to a disputed Kentucky default judgment.
Undisclosed AI use triggers referral to guidance even without sanctions — always disclose the tool when citations fail.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the use of generative AI but did not name a specific tool.
Appellate review of High Court judgments concerning permanent worldwide anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions.
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 noted that a self-represented litigant used generative AI to draft a court memorandum, which included fabricated case law. The litigant withdrew the filing after opposing counsel challenged it. The Court did not issue a formal sanction but referred the litigant to the judiciary's official guidance on AI use 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.