Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another
High Court · Nov 3, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- High Court
- Record ID
- tan-hai-peng-micheal-and-another-2025-11-03
- Observed outcome
- The court disregarded the fictitious authorities and initiated a formal inquiry into the conduct of counsel, reserving the determination of consequences for a later date.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
If a colleague hands you an authority, you still own the cite; verify before signing and demand disclosure of the research tool used.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on the merits of the originating claims, with a separate subsequent judgment pending regarding the consequences of counsel's citation of fictitious authorities.
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 stated he did not know which AI tool was used.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.