TAJUDIN BIN GULAM RASUL & Anor v SURIAYA BINTE HAJA MOHIDEEN

[2025] SGHCR 33 High Court Registrar 29 September 2025 • HC/OC 125/2025 ( HC/SUM 1240/2025 ) • 31 min read

11 cases cited (7 SG, 4 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Costs — Artificial intelligence — Fictitious authority Legal Profession — Professional conduct — Artificial intelligence — Fictitious authority

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Legal Profession

Judges (1)

Tan Yu Qing Delivered

Counsel (4)

Adel Law LLC Firm DL Law Corporation Firm Lalwani Anil Mangan Counsel Plaintiff Umar Abdullah bin Mazeli Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Mohamed Ghouse s/o Tajudin Plaintiff Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen Defendant Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul Plaintiff

Case Significance

[2025] SGHCR 33 is a High Court Registrar decision dated 29 September 2025 concerning Civil Procedure and Legal Profession, specifically addressing costs and professional conduct. The judgment was delivered by Tan Yu Qing. The case was brought by Mohamed Ghouse s/o Tajudin and others (plaintiff) against Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen (defendant). Legal representation was provided by DL Law Corporation and Adel Law LLC. The judgment cites 11 cases (7 Singapore, 4 foreign) and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Legal Profession Act. This decision has been cited by 2 subsequent judgments in the dataset.

Summary

In what appears to be the first Singapore decision addressing the citation of AI-generated fictitious case authorities, a lawyer cited a non-existent case produced by a generative AI tool in written submissions. The court ordered the lawyer to personally pay costs of $800 to the defendant and issued a strong warning that advocates must independently verify all AI-generated content, emphasising that the use of GenAI tools does not diminish a lawyer's professional duties.

What was decided in [2025] SGHCR 33?

[2025] SGHCR 33 (TAJUDIN BIN GULAM RASUL & Anor v SURIAYA BINTE HAJA MOHIDEEN) is a High Court Registrar decision from 29 September 2025 addressing Civil Procedure and Legal Profession, specifically costs and professional conduct. The judgment was delivered by Tan Yu Qing.

Who were the parties in TAJUDIN BIN GULAM RASUL & Anor v SURIAYA BINTE HAJA MOHIDEEN?

The plaintiff in [2025] SGHCR 33 was Mohamed Ghouse s/o Tajudin, Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul, and the defendant was Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen. Legal representation included DL Law Corporation and Adel Law LLC. The case was decided on 29 September 2025 in the High Court Registrar.

Which judge decided [2025] SGHCR 33?

[2025] SGHCR 33 was delivered by Tan Yu Qing in the High Court Registrar on 29 September 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure and Legal Profession.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHCR 33 cite?

[2025] SGHCR 33 cites 11 prior decisions, including 4 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Legal Profession Act. The decision has itself been cited by 2 subsequent judgments.