Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and others
General Division of the High Court of Singapore · Mar 6, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Case A was a non-existent authority created by pairing a genuine case name with the neutral citation of a different real case; the court noted that the name and citation were individually real but did not belong together, and the case did not support the asserted legal proposition. Outcome: Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants.. Defendants’ closing submissions cited two fictitious authorities, referred to by the court as Case A and Case B. Case A combined a real case name with the neutral citation of a different case, while Case B was entirely fictitious; neither supported the propositions for which it was cited. The issue was identified by the claimants, and the solicitors admitted failing to verify the authorities, although neither confirmed which AI tool, if any, had been used. The court held that both solicitors acted improperly, unreasonably, and negligently, and imposed separate personal costs orders of $5,000 each, emphasizing their non-delegable duties to verify authorities and protect the administration of justice.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and trial and records Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants. in General Division of the High Court of Singapore. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Case A was a non-existent authority created by pairing a genuine case name with the neutral citation of a different real case; the court noted that the name and citation were individually real but did not belong together, and the case did not support the asserted legal proposition. Outcome: Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants.. Defendants’ closing submissions cited two fictitious authorities, referred to by the court as Case A and Case B. Case A combined a real case name with the neutral citation of a different case, while Case B was entirely fictitious; neither supported the propositions for which it was cited. The issue was identified by the claimants, and the solicitors admitted failing to verify the authorities, although neither confirmed which AI tool, if any, had been used. The court held that both solicitors acted improperly, unreasonably, and negligently, and imposed separate personal costs orders of $5,000 each, emphasizing their non-delegable duties to verify authorities and protect the administration of justice.
This matter connects fake citations and trial with Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants. in General Division of the High Court of Singapore. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants.
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 | Case A was a non-existent authority created by pairing a genuine case name with the neutral citation of a different real case; the court noted that the name and citation were individually real but did not belong together, and the case did not support the asserted legal proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Case B was entirely fictitious: neither its case name nor neutral citation corresponded to an existing case, and it did not support the legal proposition for which it was cited.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and others?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Case A was a non-existent authority created by pairing a genuine case name with the neutral citation of a different real case; the court noted that the name and citation were individually real but did not belong together, and the case did not support the asserted legal proposition. Outcome: Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants.. Defendants’ closing submissions cited two fictitious authorities, referred to by the court as Case A and Case B. Case A combined a real case name with the neutral citation of a different case, while Case B was entirely fictitious; neither supported the propositions for which it was cited. The issue was identified by the claimants, and the solicitors admitted failing to verify the authorities, although neither confirmed which AI tool, if any, had been used. The court held that both solicitors acted improperly, unreasonably, and negligently, and imposed separate personal costs orders of $5,000 each, emphasizing their non-delegable duties to verify authorities and protect the administration of justice.
- Why does Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and others matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Personal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants. in General Division of the High Court of Singapore. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and others?
- 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 Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and others 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.