Rajib Kumar Dhali v Maybank Singapore Limited
Magistrate's Court · Oct 14, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Record ID
- rajib-kumar-dhali-v-maybank-singapore-limited-2025-10-14
- Observed outcome
- Claim dismissed; claimant ordered to pay 18,947.13 SGD in costs to the defendant.
- Known monetary consequence
- SGD 18,947
Why this matter warrants attention
The court dismissed the claimant's action and ordered the claimant to pay the defendant 18,947.13 SGD in costs. The judge explicitly cited the claimant's submission of 11 fictitious or erroneous AI-generated authorities as a primary factor justifying the costs order, noting that such conduct caused unnecessary time and resource wastage.
The court reasoned that self-represented litigants have a responsibility to verify the accuracy of cited authorities. The judge determined that the claimant's submission of 11 fictitious or erroneous precedents generated by AI constituted a failure to discharge this duty, resulting in wasted court time and resources, which warranted an adverse costs order.
This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants using generative AI to fabricate legal authorities. It establishes that courts may impose significant monetary costs on parties who fail to verify AI-generated research, emphasizing that such tools are not a substitute for professional legal expertise.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- SGD 18,947
- Procedural posture
- Final judgment following trial in the Magistrate's Court of Singapore.
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 judge identified the authorities as generated by artificial intelligence.
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 legal authorities cited in court filings, regardless of the research source.
- Establish internal review processes to ensure that AI-assisted research is cross-referenced against authoritative legal databases.
- Document the verification process for all cited precedents to demonstrate compliance with professional standards of diligence.
- Monitor for patterns of 'hallucinated' citations in opposing counsel or pro se filings to proactively address potential misinformation.