Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen
High Court · Sep 29, 2025
SingaporeEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | CC cited a non-existent, AI-generated case in the Claimants' Written Submissions (cited at para 49) to support a proposition under the Moneylenders Act; the case was absent from the bundle of authorities and the case name was fabricated while the citation number related to an unrelated matter. Outcome: Costs and order to inform client. CC cited a fictitious AI-generated case in written submissions. The Defendant's counsel located the error, CC admitted the authority was AI-generated and did not exist, and the Court found CC acted improperly, ordering personal costs of $800.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Costs and order to inform client; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Singapore HC orders personal costs and client notification for AI-fabricated cites; disclosure to the client is now part of the remedy.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | CC cited a non-existent, AI-generated case in the Claimants' Written Submissions (cited at para 49) to support a proposition under the Moneylenders Act; the case was absent from the bundle of authorities and the case name was fabricated while the citation number related to an unrelated matter. Outcome: Costs and order to inform client. CC cited a fictitious AI-generated case in written submissions. The Defendant's counsel located the error, CC admitted the authority was AI-generated and did not exist, and the Court found CC acted improperly, ordering personal costs of $800.
Operational lesson
Singapore HC orders personal costs and client notification for AI-fabricated cites; disclosure to the client is now part of the remedy.
Record details
CourtHigh Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 29, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCosts and order to inform client
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Costs and order to inform client
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | CC cited a non-existent, AI-generated case in the Claimants' Written Submissions (cited at para 49) to support a proposition under the Moneylenders Act; the case was absent from the bundle of authorities and the case name was fabricated while the citation number related to an unrelated matter.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen?
- Fabricated: Case Law | CC cited a non-existent, AI-generated case in the Claimants' Written Submissions (cited at para 49) to support a proposition under the Moneylenders Act; the case was absent from the bundle of authorities and the case name was fabricated while the citation number related to an unrelated matter. Outcome: Costs and order to inform client. CC cited a fictitious AI-generated case in written submissions. The Defendant's counsel located the error, CC admitted the authority was AI-generated and did not exist, and the Court found CC acted improperly, ordering personal costs of $800.
- Why does Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen matter for legal AI risk?
- Singapore HC orders personal costs and client notification for AI-fabricated cites; disclosure to the client is now part of the remedy.
- What does the public record establish about Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen?
- 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 Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen 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.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.