Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another
High Court · Nov 3, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court identified two fictitious authorities in the defendants' closing submissions. Counsel admitted the citations originated from an assisting solicitor and could not identify the specific AI tool used. The court has reserved judgment on potential consequences for this conduct pending further submissions.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' closing submissions cited a non-existent authority at paragraph 67; the court found the authority fictitious and disregarded it; counsel later admitted the authority was provided by a colleague and could not identify the AI tool used. || Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' closing submissions cited a second non-existent authority at paragraph 68; the court found this authority fictitious as well and declined to repeat the citation; admissions were made that the references originated from the solicitor assisting and the specific AI tool was not identified.
- Why it matters now
- If a colleague hands you an authority, you still own the cite; verify before signing and demand disclosure of the research tool used.
Why this matter is tracked
In the Singapore High Court, defendants' counsel submitted closing arguments containing two fictitious legal authorities. The court identified these as fabricated and disregarded them. Upon judicial inquiry, counsel admitted the citations were provided by an assisting solicitor, Mr. Amarjit Singh Sidhu, who claimed the inclusion was an honest oversight. Counsel for the defendants stated he did not know which AI tool was used to generate the citations. The court noted reasonable grounds to suspect AI-generated hallucinations and indicated that it would address potential consequences for the citation of fictitious authorities in a subsequent judgment, following the collection of further information from the involved counsel.
If a colleague hands you an authority, you still own the cite; verify before signing and demand disclosure of the research tool used.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel stated he did not know which AI tool was used.
Judgment on the merits of the originating claims, with a separate subsequent judgment pending regarding the consequences of counsel's citation of fictitious authorities.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' closing submissions cited a non-existent authority at paragraph 67; the court found the authority fictitious and disregarded it; counsel later admitted the authority was provided by a colleague and could not identify the AI tool used.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' closing submissions cited a second non-existent authority at paragraph 68; the court found this authority fictitious as well and declined to repeat the citation; admissions were made that the references originated from the solicitor assisting and the specific AI tool was not identified.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another?
- The court identified two fictitious authorities in the defendants' closing submissions. Counsel admitted the citations originated from an assisting solicitor and could not identify the specific AI tool used. The court has reserved judgment on potential consequences for this conduct pending further submissions.
- Why does Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another matter for legal AI risk?
- If a colleague hands you an authority, you still own the cite; verify before signing and demand disclosure of the research tool used.
- What does the public record establish about Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another 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.