Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
XAI v XAH and another matter
Family Court · Sep 3, 2025
SingaporeEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationspublished opinionfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Father makes reference to the provisions of the Women’s Charter that were in force prior to the 2nd of January 2025 Outcome: Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use. Father admitted using ChatGPT to generate case citations; 14 cited cases were non-existent or misattributed. Court treated them as AI hallucinations, disregarded them, awarded costs, and ordered declarations for future AI use.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use in Family Court, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Father makes reference to the provisions of the Women’s Charter that were in force prior to the 2nd of January 2025 Outcome: Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use. Father admitted using ChatGPT to generate case citations; 14 cited cases were non-existent or misattributed. Court treated them as AI hallucinations, disregarded them, awarded costs, and ordered declarations for future AI use.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use in Family Court, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtFamily Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 3, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOrder to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
15 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Father makes reference to the provisions of the Women’s Charter that were in force prior to the 2nd of January 2025
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'AAU v AAT [2015] SGFC 114'; LawNet revealed the citation corresponds to TEI v TEJ [2015] SGFC 114 (a different matter).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'Chong Yoke Fong v Tan Siew Chin [2014] SGDC 285'; LawNet showed the neutral citation belongs to Public Prosecutor v Quek Keng Siang Billy [2014] SGDC 285.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'UVH v UVI [2019] SGFC 98'; LawNet showed the citation corresponds to VAO v VAP [2019] SGFC 98 (a different divorce matter).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'WRS v WRT [2018] SGFC 132'; LawNet search revealed there was no such case under that neutral citation/name.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'TBU v TBV [2016] SGFC 98'; LawNet showed the neutral citation corresponds to Re TQR [2016] SGFC 98 (different subject).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'VZO v VZP [2021] SGFC 11'; LawNet revealed the citation corresponds to VOX v VOY [2021] SGFC 11 (different matter).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'CAF v CAG [2010] SGDC 176'; LawNet showed the neutral citation corresponds to Public Prosecutor v Toh Soon Seng [2010] SGDC 176.
Show 7 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'XP v XQ [2005] SGDC 203'; LawNet showed the neutral citation corresponds to KV v KW [2005] SGDC 203 (different matter).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father included 'Huang v Lee [2018] SGFC' in submissions; LawNet search revealed no such case and the citation is not genuine.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father included 'Lee Siew Kuen v Foo [2020] SGFC' in submissions; LawNet search revealed no such case and citation is not genuine.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'Re SS 1234/2019' (an application number) which has no published judgment and is not the proper form of Family Court citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father included 'Lim Bee Eng v Teo [2021] SGFC'; LawNet search disclosed no genuine case under that name/citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'BZ v BAA [2004] SGDC 220'; LawNet showed the citation corresponds to Public Prosecutor v Lim Choong Hiang [2004] SGDC 220.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Father cited 'UEB v UEC [2018] SGFC 72'; LawNet revealed the citation corresponds to UNS v UNT [2018] SGFC 72 (different ancillary matter).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in XAI v XAH and another matter?
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Father makes reference to the provisions of the Women’s Charter that were in force prior to the 2nd of January 2025 Outcome: Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use. Father admitted using ChatGPT to generate case citations; 14 cited cases were non-existent or misattributed. Court treated them as AI hallucinations, disregarded them, awarded costs, and ordered declarations for future AI use.
- Why does XAI v XAH and another matter matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with Order to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use in Family Court, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about XAI v XAH and another matter?
- 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 XAI v XAH and another matter 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.