Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 49
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-03-06
- Judges: S Mohan J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased)
- Defendant/Respondent: Tan Cheong Joo and another and other matters
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Legal Profession Act, Legal Profession Act 1966
- Cases Cited: [2025] SGHC 214, [2025] SGHC 217, [2026] SGHC 16, [2026] SGHC 49
- Judgment Length: 40 pages, 11,760 words
Summary
This case highlights the timely issue of the use and misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the conduct of court proceedings. The High Court of Singapore had to address the consequences of counsel for the defendants citing two fictitious legal authorities in their closing submissions, which were discovered by the plaintiffs' counsel. The court had to determine whether the conduct of the defendants' counsel, as well as the solicitor they engaged to assist, amounted to improper, unreasonable, or negligent behavior that caused the plaintiffs to incur unnecessary costs, and whether personal costs orders should be made against them.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The case arose from several loans made by the late Tan Thuan Teck (TTT) to the defendants, who are four brothers and a company in which they are directors and/or shareholders. TTT's sons, who are the co-executors of his estate (the Claimants), commenced three actions to recover the sums they allege remain outstanding under the loans. The three actions were informally consolidated and heard together.
In the First Judgment, the court found that the defendants failed to establish any of their defenses and that the Claimants' claim was made out. Accordingly, the court granted the Claimants judgment in the suits.
The central issue in the present judgment is the fact that, in the defendants' closing submissions, their counsel, Mr. Goh Peck San, cited two fictitious legal authorities at paragraphs 67 and 68 of the submissions. These fictitious authorities were referred to as "Case A" and "Case B" in the judgment. The Claimants' counsel discovered the issue and brought it to the court's attention in their reply submissions.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues the court had to address were:
- Whether Mr. Goh and/or Mr. Sidhu, the solicitor engaged by Mr. Goh to assist with the research and drafting of the defendants' closing submissions, acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently in citing the fictitious authorities.
- Whether Mr. Goh's and/or Mr. Sidhu's conduct caused the Claimants to incur unnecessary costs.
- Whether it is just in the circumstances to order Mr. Goh and/or Mr. Sidhu to compensate the Claimants for the whole or any part of the relevant costs.
- Whether Mr. Sidhu should be permitted to bear Mr. Goh's share of any personal costs orders.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court first set out the relevant background facts on the fictitious authorities issue, following its investigations and compilation of the information. It then analyzed the issues in three stages:
Stage 1: The court considered whether Mr. Goh and/or Mr. Sidhu acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently. The court found that both Mr. Goh and Mr. Sidhu had failed to exercise the level of care and diligence expected of legal professionals in verifying the accuracy and existence of the authorities cited in the defendants' closing submissions.
Stage 2: The court determined that Mr. Goh's and Mr. Sidhu's conduct in citing the fictitious authorities caused the Claimants to incur unnecessary costs in having to identify and address the issue.
Stage 3: The court concluded that it was just in the circumstances to order Mr. Goh and Mr. Sidhu to compensate the Claimants for the costs incurred as a result of their conduct.
The court also considered whether Mr. Sidhu should be permitted to bear Mr. Goh's share of the personal costs orders, and determined that it would be appropriate to do so.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered Mr. Goh and Mr. Sidhu to pay the Claimants' costs on an indemnity basis, with Mr. Sidhu being permitted to bear Mr. Goh's share of the personal costs orders. The court emphasized the importance of the legal profession's responsibility in the use of AI tools, and the need for a commensurate evolution in professional responsibility to match the technological advances in the field.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
- It highlights the timely issue of the use and misuse of AI tools in the conduct of court proceedings, and the need for the legal profession to adapt its standards and ethical foundations to the evolving technological landscape.
- The court's analysis and the personal costs orders against the defendants' counsel and the solicitor they engaged serve as a strong warning to legal professionals about the consequences of failing to exercise due care and diligence in verifying the accuracy of information, particularly when relying on AI-generated content.
- The judgment reinforces the importance of the legal profession's responsibility in the use of AI tools and the need for a commensurate evolution in professional responsibility to match the technological advances in the field.
- The case sets a precedent for how courts may address similar issues of the misuse of AI tools in legal practice, and the potential consequences for legal professionals involved.
Legislation Referenced
- Legal Profession Act
- Legal Profession Act 1966
Cases Cited
- [2025] SGHC 214
- [2025] SGHC 217
- [2026] SGHC 16
- [2026] SGHC 49
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHC 49 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.