General Division of the High Court of Singapore (Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing)
Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen [2025] SGHCR 33
Sanctioned · September 2025
What was fabricated
Written submissions filed 1 June 2025 cited a case — fabricated name and citation, generated by a generative-AI tool used by a junior lawyer — for the proposition that ad hoc loans between acquaintances are not moneylending. The authority was not in the bundle and could not be traced. Counsel first described it as a clerical error and admitted the citation was fictitious, and that AI had been used, only when pressed by the court.
What happened as a result
Applying the Ridehalgh v Horsefield test, the court found the conduct improper, unreasonable and negligent and ordered claimants' counsel to personally pay the defendant S$800 within 14 days. Reported as the first Singapore judgment to penalise improper reliance on AI in litigation.
Sources
Every incident is confirmed against at least one reputable source (mainstream news, legal/official, or the organisation itself). Nothing unverifiable is listed. Accuracy is non-negotiable — Ukweli is a truth product.