TAJUDIN BIN GULAM RASUL & Anor v SURIAYA BINTE HAJA MOHIDEEN
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Yu Qing |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure, Legal Profession |
| Counsel | Adel Law LLC, DL Law Corporation, Lalwani Anil Mangan, Umar Abdullah bin Mazeli |
Source: [2025] SGHCR 33, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
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.
[2025] SGHCR 33 explained
TAJUDIN BIN GULAM RASUL & Anor v SURIAYA BINTE HAJA MOHIDEEN ([2025] SGHCR 33) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 29 September 2025. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Legal Profession. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 3 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2025] SGHCR 33 about?
TAJUDIN BIN GULAM RASUL & Anor v SURIAYA BINTE HAJA MOHIDEEN ([2025] SGHCR 33) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Costs — Artificial intelligence — Fictitious authority” and “Legal Profession — Professional conduct — Artificial intelligence — Fictitious authority”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHCR 33 consider?
The judgment refers to Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2025] SGHCR 33?
Within this corpus, [2025] SGHCR 33 has been cited by 3 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
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 ([2025] SGHCR 33)?
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.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (11)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGHCR 33)