AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesTajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen

High Court · Sep 29, 2025

SingaporeEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Singapore High Court ordered the claimant's counsel to pay personal costs to the defendant and mandated that both parties notify their clients of the court's findings. The court determined the counsel's conduct in citing a fictitious, AI-generated authority was improper, unreasonable, and negligent, violating professional duties and the court's GenAI Guide.

Why the court cared
The court applied the Ridehalgh test, finding the conduct improper, unreasonable, and negligent. It emphasized that counsel has a non-delegable duty to verify AI-generated content, and that citing fictitious authorities undermines the integrity of the justice system. The court rejected the counsel's characterization of the error as a mere clerical mistake, citing a lack of candor and failure to appreciate the gravity of the conduct.
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
GE
AI toolGenerative AI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court ordered the claimant's counsel to pay personal costs to the defendant and directed that the court's decision be provided to the clients of both parties.
Known amountSGD 800
Professional sanctionThe court issued a formal finding of improper, unreasonable, and negligent conduct and ordered the lawyer to inform their client of the incident.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Counsel used a generative AI tool.

Procedural posture

The matter arose during an application (SUM 1240) to set aside a default judgment, where the court adjudicated a request for personal costs against the claimant's counsel for citing a fictitious authority.

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.

  1. 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?
The Singapore High Court ordered the claimant's counsel to pay personal costs to the defendant and mandated that both parties notify their clients of the court's findings. The court determined the counsel's conduct in citing a fictitious, AI-generated authority was improper, unreasonable, and negligent, violating professional duties and the court's GenAI Guide.
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.

Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LimitedHigh Court · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + contractRoux v. van GreunenHigh Court · Jan 29, 2026same court · fake citations + contractForbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri SeijiHigh Court · Jan 21, 2026same court · fake citations + contractTan Hai Peng Micheal and anotherHigh Court · Nov 3, 2025same court · fake citations + contractChoksi v IPSHigh Court · Nov 4, 2025same court · fake citations + contractOlsen v Finansiel StabilitetHigh Court · Jan 25, 2025same court · fake citations + contract