How to Verify a Case Citation Before It Goes Into a Filing
Nobody sets out to cite an authority that does not exist. It happens because a plausible looking citation is carried forward without anybody doing the one thing that would catch it. The way to verify a case citation is mechanical, it takes a few minutes, and it is what one forum now proposes to turn into a signed declaration.
Step 1: Separate What Came From a Tool From What Came From the Record
Before checking anything, mark up the draft: which authorities and propositions came from a research tool or an assistant of any kind, and which came from the file. The two are checked against different things, and a draft that does not distinguish them gets checked inconsistently.
This is also the step that makes the work auditable. A checker who cannot tell which assertions need a source and which need the record will verify the easy ones twice and the hard ones not at all.
Step 2: Resolve Every Authority to a Primary Source
An authority is verified when it has been resolved to the court's own record or to an established reporter, not when a search result has repeated it. The court's website is the shortest route for a recent decision, because a neutral citation is assigned by the court and resolves on its own site.
For a statutory provision the equivalent is the Official Gazette or the publishing department's own copy, and for an amendment it is the amending instrument rather than a consolidated reprint. A consolidated copy is a convenience, and a convenience that has served superseded text before.
Step 3: Check Four Things About Each Case, Not One
Confirming that a case exists is the first of four checks and the easiest to mistake for the whole job.
That it exists: The decision is on the court's record or in an established reporter.
That the citation details are correct: The court, the year, the parties and the number all belong to the same decision.
That the holding is stated accurately: What the draft says the case decided is what the decision actually decided.
That it is relevant: It bears on the proposition it is cited for, as distinct from sharing its vocabulary.
The third is where real cases go wrong. A decision that exists and is correctly cited can still be described as holding something it did not, and that error is harder to spot than an authority that resolves nowhere, because every surface detail checks out.
Step 4: Read the Passage, Not the Summary
A headnote, an editorial summary or a tool's description of a case is not the case. The check is complete only when the passage relied on has been read in the decision itself.
Where a proposition is load-bearing, copy the paragraph into the working file with its paragraph number. The practice has two uses: it forces the passage to be read, and it gives whoever argues the matter the words rather than a description of them.
Step 5: Check the Provision Separately
A case about a provision is not proof of what the provision now says. Numbering changes, sub-sections are substituted, thresholds and timelines are amended, and successor codes renumber everything.
So check the provision against its own current text and note the amendment position where it matters. A decision on a provision as it stood before substitution is still good law about the old text and may be useless about the new.
Step 6: Check the Status of the Decision
Existence, accuracy and relevance say nothing about whether the decision still stands. A judgment may have been stayed, a question may have been referred to a larger Bench, or the proposition may have been overtaken.
A short status check on the court's record and in the reporter is the last substantive step, and the one most often skipped because the earlier checks felt like completion.
Step 7: Record the Check, Not Just the Result
Against each authority note the source consulted, the date it was consulted and who consulted it. Where the draft guidelines for the Trade Marks Registry are notified, that record is what a signed declaration about verification would rest on, and it is useful well before then.
A record kept at the time is also the only thing that distinguishes a mistake from a failure to check, and those two attract very different responses.
Step 8: Cut What Cannot Be Stood Up
An authority that cannot be resolved comes out. It is not softened, not introduced as reportedly held, and not carried in a footnote with a hedge.
The same goes for a proposition that survives only in the tool's description of a case. Where the point matters and no authority can be stood up for it, the honest filing says so and argues the point on principle, which is a far better position than an authority that is taken apart in reply.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Stopping at existence: A real, correctly cited case can still be described as holding something it did not.
Treating a search result as a source: An authority is verified against the court's record or an established reporter, not against a repetition of it.
Relying on a summary: The check is complete when the passage relied on has been read in the decision.
Assuming the provision is unchanged: A case about a provision proves nothing about its current text.
Skipping the status check: A stay, a reference to a larger Bench or a later decision can leave the authority standing and useless.
Hedging instead of cutting: What cannot be resolved comes out of the filing.
Key Statutory Provisions
Draft Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, 2026, clauses 6 and 9: Proposed, and taking effect only on notification. A draft. Clause 6 would require citations, statutory provisions and legal propositions contributed by AI to be checked against authorised non-AI legal sources before filing, and factual assertions to be checked against the underlying record or personal knowledge. Clause 9 would require, for each AI-suggested authority, confirmation that it exists, that its citation details are correct, that its holding is accurately stated and that it is relevant, with a proviso that a dispute about relevance alone is not actionable. The method set out above is not created by that draft: checking an authority before putting it to a tribunal is the ordinary duty of candour, and the draft would reduce one forum's version of it to a signed form.
Sources and References
The draft guidelines carrying the verification standard, at the issuing authority
Draft Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, 2026, clauses 6 and 9
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.
Comments