Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Yu Hon Tong Thomas v Cent aline Property Agency Limited on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Yu Hon Tong Thomas v Cent aline Property Agency Limited

Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
China
Decided
2025-02-26
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
—
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The claimant used AI to assemble allegations that the employment contract involved serious criminal conduct, including forgery, theft, conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering. The court held that these allegations were factually and legally baseless and unsupported by substantive evidence. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The AI-generated addendum relied on unspecified Canadian cases. The court held that those authorities were inapplicable to the Hong Kong interpretation of section 70 of the Employment Ordinance and did not establish any legal error.

Sanction teardown · Court of First Instance, China · 2025-02-26

Yu Hon Tong Thomas v Cent aline Property Agency Limited

What happened

In Court of First Instance, China, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    The claimant used AI to assemble allegations that the employment contract involved serious criminal conduct, including forgery, theft, conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering. The court held that these allegations were factually and legally baseless and unsupported by substantive evidence.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The AI-generated addendum relied on unspecified Canadian cases. The court held that those authorities were inapplicable to the Hong Kong interpretation of section 70 of the Employment Ordinance and did not establish any legal error.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Not specified in source record.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3153/HCLA000033_2024.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3153/HCLA000033_2024.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template