Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and others

Why this matter warrants attention

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.