Credit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho & another
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
District Court · Mar 20, 2026
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | D2 attributed an estoppel proposition to paragraph 58 of Lam Ka Kui v Choi Yuen Ling, but the cited paragraph contains a discussion of the plaintiff’s opportunity to have a power of attorney prepared and does not state the quoted proposition. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Adverse Costs Order. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in District Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | D2 attributed an estoppel proposition to paragraph 58 of Lam Ka Kui v Choi Yuen Ling, but the cited paragraph contains a discussion of the plaintiff’s opportunity to have a power of attorney prepared and does not state the quoted proposition. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in District Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Adverse Costs Order
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | D2 attributed an estoppel proposition to paragraph 58 of Lam Ka Kui v Choi Yuen Ling, but the cited paragraph contains a discussion of the plaintiff’s opportunity to have a power of attorney prepared and does not state the quoted proposition.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | D2 claimed that exhibit HB/736 was a 2024 handwritten statement by D1 confirming that D2 funded the property and would own it after 15 years of payments; the court found that HB/736 was actually D1’s affidavit dated 1 June 2022 and contained no such statement.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | D2 claimed that A-6 contained 42 bank deposit slips covering 2000–2015, all bearing her signature and bank stamps; the court found that only 37 slips were produced, they lacked bank stamps, and they did not cover the asserted continuous 15-year period.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | D2 claimed that A-12 to A-14 contained 156 water, electricity, gas, rates, and related bills from 2000 to 2024; the court found that the trial bundle contained no such 156 documents.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | D2 claimed that her testimony at HB/576 paragraphs 12–15 recorded an agreement that she would fully fund the purchase and mortgage and receive ownership; the court found that HB/576–578 were her 7 January 2025 affidavit and contained neither the cited paragraphs nor the alleged content.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Credit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho & another?
- False Quotes: Case Law | D2 attributed an estoppel proposition to paragraph 58 of Lam Ka Kui v Choi Yuen Ling, but the cited paragraph contains a discussion of the plaintiff’s opportunity to have a power of attorney prepared and does not state the quoted proposition. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
- Why does Credit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho & another matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in District Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Credit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho & another?
- 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 Credit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho & another 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.