Licksun Company Limited v Occupiers of Lot No. 552
District Court · Aug 8, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- District Court
- Record ID
- licksun-company-limited-v-occupiers-of-lot-no-552-2025-08-08
- Observed outcome
- The Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the 2nd Defendant's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the 2nd Defendant's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis. This sanction was imposed because the Plaintiff lodged six non-existent authorities, which the Court found had the effect of misleading the tribunal and wasting judicial and party resources, regardless of the Plaintiff's lack of legal representation or subjective intent.
The Court reasoned that a litigant in person has a duty not to mislead the court. It determined that the lodging of non-existent authorities, even if unintentional, caused prejudice by wasting the time of the 2nd Defendant and the Court. The Court concluded that indemnity costs were appropriate to mark its disapproval of this conduct.
Delegating authority lists to non-legal staff is no defence when six of six cases are fictitious — lawyers sign the list, lawyers verify it.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal against a costs order made by a Master in the District Court of Hong Kong.
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 source identifies the authorities as 'Suspicious Authorities' and the court notes the Plaintiff's representative did not prepare them, implying automated generation.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all cited authorities, regardless of the source of the research.
- Ensure that any party signing or lodging submissions to the court takes personal responsibility for the accuracy of all included citations.
- Establish clear internal review processes for non-legal staff or automated tools to prevent the submission of unverified or hallucinated legal authorities.