Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen
High Court · Sep 29, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- High Court
- Record ID
- tajudin-bin-gulam-rasul-and-another-v-suriaya-bte-haja-mohideen-2025-09-29
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- SGD 800
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Singapore HC orders personal costs and client notification for AI-fabricated cites; disclosure to the client is now part of the remedy.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- SGD 800
- 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.
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
Counsel used a generative AI tool.
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 case law and authorities generated by AI tools.
- Ensure all cited authorities are physically present in the bundle of authorities provided to the court.
- Maintain full transparency with the court regarding the use of AI tools in document preparation.
- Address potential citation errors immediately and candidly upon discovery to mitigate findings of professional misconduct.