Heung Long Sang v Wong Mei Yuen
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 · Aug 31, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The defendant cited the established proprietary estoppel authority with a misspelled case name and an incorrect report citation. The court identified the correct case as Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 and found that the citation error did not assist the proposed appeal. Outcome: Applications dismissed.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Applications dismissed. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Applications dismissed in District Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The defendant cited the established proprietary estoppel authority with a misspelled case name and an incorrect report citation. The court identified the correct case as Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 and found that the citation error did not assist the proposed appeal. Outcome: Applications dismissed.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Applications dismissed 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.
Applications dismissed
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The defendant cited the established proprietary estoppel authority with a misspelled case name and an incorrect report citation. The court identified the correct case as Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 and found that the citation error did not assist the proposed appeal.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The defendant cited Jennings v Rice using an incorrect case-name and citation format. The court treated the authority as Jennings v Rice [2003] 1 P & CR 84 and found it irrelevant because the defendant had failed to establish the proprietary-estoppel requirements.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The defendant misspelled Greasley v Cooke as 'Creasley v Cooke' and gave an incorrect citation. The court identified the correct authority as Greasley v Cooke [1981] 1 WLR 1306 and found that it did not assist the defendant because she had not pleaded or proved the relevant promise and reliance.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The defendant cited 'Lau Sze Tat v Lau Sze King (2018) HKCFI 1357,' but the court found that HKCFI 1357 actually corresponded to HCMP 2482/2014, an unrelated dispute involving a moneylender and a second mortgage, with no apparent connection to the cited case or proprietary estoppel.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Heung Long Sang v Wong Mei Yuen?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The defendant cited the established proprietary estoppel authority with a misspelled case name and an incorrect report citation. The court identified the correct case as Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 and found that the citation error did not assist the proposed appeal. Outcome: Applications dismissed.
- Why does Heung Long Sang v Wong Mei Yuen matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Applications dismissed in District Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Heung Long Sang v Wong Mei Yuen?
- 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 Heung Long Sang v Wong Mei Yuen 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.