Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd
Court of Appeal of New Zealand · Nov 21, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Court of Appeal of New Zealand
- Record ID
- wikeley-v-kea-investments-ltd-2024-11-21
- Observed outcome
- The court noted the withdrawal of the memorandum and referred the litigant to official judicial guidance on AI usage.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Undisclosed AI use triggers referral to guidance even without sanctions — always disclose the tool when citations fail.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Failure_to_disclose_ai_use
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of High Court judgments concerning permanent worldwide anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions.
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 generative AI but did not name a specific tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence and citation accuracy of all legal authorities cited in filings.
- Disclose the use of generative AI tools in accordance with local court rules and guidance.
- Monitor opposing filings for signs of AI-generated hallucinations, such as non-existent case law.