Facts
The executors of a lender's estate brought three informally consolidated suits against four brothers and their company to recover loans. In the defendants' closing submissions of 7 July 2025, counsel on record cited two authorities that did not exist: one paired a real case name with another case's neutral citation, the other was invented outright, and neither supported the proposition cited. The claimants' counsel flagged this in reply. Counsel explained that a second solicitor had helped draft the submissions; that solicitor said a paralegal who had since left prepared the first draft and that he did not know whether AI had been used. The court decided the merits on 3 November 2025 and left this issue for a separate judgment.
Question
The court had to decide whether to make personal costs orders, against whom and for how much. Order 21 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2021 allows such orders against a ‘solicitor’ responsible for costs incurred unreasonably, which raised whether the second solicitor, who was not on record, could be reached. The court applied the three-stage test in Ridehalgh v Horsefield: whether the conduct was improper, unreasonable or negligent; whether it caused the other side unnecessary costs; and whether compensation was just in all the circumstances. Both solicitors accepted liability, offered to pay S$1,500 jointly and asked for the matter to be resolved privately between the parties.
Decision
In his judgment of 6 March 2026, Justice S Mohan held that a personal costs order can be made against any solicitor responsible for the conduct, whether or not on record, under Order 21 rule 6 or the court's inherent power. Both solicitors acted improperly. Counsel on record had a non-delegable duty, accepted responsibility for every authority by signing the submissions, and should have treated the authorities' absence from the bundle as a red flag. The second solicitor failed to supervise the paralegal or check the citations. Neither could say whether AI had been used, though the court considered it most likely. Rejecting private resolution and the proposed sum, the court ordered each to pay S$5,000 on an indemnity basis.
Why it matters
The judgment follows Tajudin (September 2025), the first reported Singapore case of counsel citing fictitious authorities, and sets a much higher sum because the citations went to a central issue: who bore the burden of proving that the lender was an excluded moneylender. Citing the Registrar's 2024 circular, the court stressed that using AI tools is not objectionable in itself but that lawyers must verify everything they file. It confirmed that a solicitor drafting behind the scenes can be sanctioned and warned that future cases may lead to disciplinary proceedings.
Related stages
Merits judgment: Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2025] SGHC 217 (3 November 2025). In Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen [2025] SGHCR 33 (29 September 2025), an Assistant Registrar ordered counsel to pay S$800 personally. The court also referred to Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji [2026] SGHC 16 and Landscape Engineering v Dot Safety Solutions [2025] SGHC 214, which involved self-represented litigants. The S$5,000 orders form part of the S$180,000 global costs award, so the defendants pay S$170,000 and each solicitor S$5,000; the court also barred the solicitors from passing any of this on to their clients. No appeal was found.