HomeCasesTan Hai Peng Micheal and another

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another

High Court · Nov 3, 2025

SingaporeEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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.

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

Operational lesson

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

CourtHigh Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateNov 3, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

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?: 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.
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.

Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LimitedHigh Court · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Roux v. van GreunenHigh Court · Jan 29, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri SeijiHigh Court · Jan 21, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja MohideenHigh Court · Sep 29, 2025same court · fake citations + contract Choksi v IPSHigh Court · Nov 4, 2025same court · fake citations + contract Olsen v Finansiel StabilitetHigh Court · Jan 25, 2025same court · fake citations + contract

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

If a colleague hands you an authority, you still own the cite; verify before signing and demand disclosure of the research tool used.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

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?

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?

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.