Court rules on generative AI
What each court's practice note or direction requires. Each cell is a plain-English summary, and the paragraph references point to the official text. Every summary is backed by a quote that a script checks sits in the cited paragraph. Rules as at 2026-10-25.
| Court and instrument | Who is bound | Disclosure | Banned or cautioned uses | Verification | Consequences | Paragraphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of New South Wales Practice Note SC Gen 23 (NSW Supreme Court): Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Official text · issued 2025-01-28 | Legal practitioners and unrepresented parties; deponents of affidavits, witness statements and character references; expert witnesses (practitioners must draw the note to experts' attention). | Affidavits, witness statements and character references must disclose that Gen AI did not generate the content. The disclosure also covers annexures and exhibits prepared by the deponent for the evidence, subject to leave. Annexures and exhibits not created for the proceedings are exempt from that disclosure. Submissions require verification in the document. Experts granted leave must identify affected content and the program and version used, annex a record of use unless excused, and identify and annex any applicable AI code or principles. | Gen AI must not generate or rephrase witness evidence, although merely preparatory work is permitted. Exceptional leave may permit preparation of annexures or exhibits. Expert reports generally require prior leave, but paragraph 23 requires leave at the first directions hearing for specified professional negligence and work injury reports. Protected material requires the safeguards in paragraph 9A, including restricted use and no model training. Subject to those safeguards, permitted uses include chronologies, indexes, witness lists, briefs, draft Crown Case Statements, document summaries and verified submissions. | If Gen AI was used for submissions, every citation, authority and legislative reference must be verified to exist, be accurate and be relevant, and references to evidence verified too. Verification must not be done solely with a Gen AI tool. | No specific sanction is stated. Using Gen AI does not qualify or absolve the author's professional or ethical obligations. | who: 7, 24; disclosure: 13, 16, 22, 14; uses: 9A, 9B, 10, 12, 20, 15, 23; verification: 16, 17; consequences: 18 |
| Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Note SC Gen 25 (Victorian Supreme Court): The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users Official text · issued 2026-05-14 | All Court users: lawyers, litigants (represented or self-represented), and lay and expert witnesses. | No general duty to disclose AI use, but users must not mislead anyone about the nature of AI-assisted work, must be prepared to identify the portions produced with AI and explain how they were verified, and the Court may direct further information. | Confidential or sensitive information should not enter public AI tools. Closed tools require caution and checks of terms or settings to establish security. Particular caution is required for evidence and expert reports. Witness evidence must reflect personal knowledge and words. Expert reports must comply with the applicable code or practice note. | AI content must undergo meaningful human verification. Users should check that authorities exist and support the propositions attributed. Quotations must be checked for accuracy and correct attribution. Verification requires reliable sources. AI confirmation alone is insufficient, but original source material housed within an AI tool may be consulted. | Filing inaccurate documents could result in costs orders. Lawyers relying on unverified AI outputs may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and face personal costs orders. | who: 2.2, 3.1; disclosure: 6.2, 7.5, 7.6; uses: 6.8, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.9; verification: 7.1, 7.4; consequences: 6.4, 6.7 |
| Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Note SC Gen 26 (Victorian Supreme Court): Practice Note for Self-Represented Litigants (AI paragraphs only) Official text · issued 2026-09-14 | Self-represented litigants in civil proceedings in the Trial Division, Court of Appeal and Costs Court. | None stated. | Self-represented litigants should not use AI programs for legal advice. | All legal information and advice obtained from AI programs must be checked; Law Library Victoria provides tools to verify citations in AI-generated documents. | Giving the Court false information can lead to serious trouble, and reliance on an AI program is not an excuse. | who: 2.2; uses: 8.12; verification: 8.12, 8.7; consequences: 8.12 |
| Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (Queensland Supreme Court): Accuracy of References in Submissions Official text · issued 2025-09-24 | The responsible person for written or oral submissions: the individual legal practitioner (not just the firm), or a self-represented litigant. | No duty to disclose AI use. The responsible person must be named at the end of written submissions; naming the firm is not enough. Naming a practitioner tells the Court they have done the verification. | Gen AI must not mislead about work undertaken or document production, or replace a witness’s own evidence. AI use must respect restrictions on using information obtained from other parties outside the proceedings, unless leave is granted or the information has been received into evidence. Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not enter public or unsecured tools. Caution is required when preparing evidence. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code and express the expert’s own opinion. | Practitioners must verify the accuracy and relevance of every reference to legislation, authorities or other sources, in written and oral submissions. Self-represented litigants must endeavour to ensure the accuracy of their references. | Practitioners responsible for written or oral submissions containing references to non-existent cases, legislation or other material may face regulatory referral, a requirement to show cause against personal costs, or both. Parties relying on non-existent references: possible adjournment and adverse costs order. | who: 5, 6, 16; disclosure: 6, 10; uses: 2; verification: 9, 11, 16; consequences: 14, 17 |
| District Court of Queensland Practice Direction 12 of 2025 (Queensland District Court): Accuracy of References in Submissions Official text · issued 2025-09-25 | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms): the responsible practitioner or self-represented litigant. | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | who: 5, 6, 16; disclosure: 6, 10; uses: 2; verification: 9, 11, 16; consequences: 14, 17 |
| Planning and Environment Court of Queensland Practice Direction 7 of 2025 (Queensland Planning and Environment Court): Accuracy of References in Submissions Official text · issued 2025-09-25 | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms): the responsible practitioner or self-represented litigant. | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | Same as Queensland Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (identical terms). | who: 5, 6, 16; disclosure: 6, 10; uses: 2; verification: 9, 11, 16; consequences: 14, 17 |
| Supreme Court of Western Australia Consolidated Practice Directions PD 9.21 (WA Supreme Court): Guidelines for the use of generative AI Official text · issued 2025-12-10 | Everyone involved in proceedings: lawyers, non-lawyers, self-represented litigants in civil and criminal proceedings, and expert witnesses. | AI use should be disclosed to other parties and the Court when directed or otherwise necessary or appropriate; experts should consider what disclosures to make. | Gen AI must not mislead about work undertaken or document production, or replace a witness’s own evidence. AI use must respect restrictions on using information obtained from other parties outside the proceedings, unless leave is granted or the information has been received into evidence. Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not enter public or unsecured tools. Caution is required when preparing evidence. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code and express the expert’s own opinion. | AI-generated content relied on in proceedings must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility for the document. Practitioners must verify that documents contain nothing misleading and that every factual and legal contention has a proper basis. | No specific sanction is stated. Those who sign, file or rely on a document are responsible for its accuracy and omissions, and having used AI is not an adequate response to errors. | who: 1; disclosure: 11, 12; uses: 10, 11, 12, 9; verification: 7, 8; consequences: 7 |
| Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence (PD-AI) (Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia) Official text · issued 2026-05-29 | All proceedings in Division 1 and Division 2: litigants (including self-represented litigants), lawyers, experts and all other court users. Lawyers keep their professional duties when using AI. | No requirement to disclose GenAI use, except for expert witnesses, unless requested. The person responsible must be able to explain whether AI was used, which tool, how the output was checked and supervised, and how the Practice Direction was observed. Lawyers engaging a private expert must give them the Practice Direction and ensure the expert certifies having read it. | Banned: entering material obtained by compulsion (production, discovery, subpoena), suppressed material or information under a publication or use prohibition into any GenAI tool, unless it stays in a closed confidential environment, is not used to train models and is used only for that proceeding; modifying, enhancing or fabricating media with GenAI; using AI to perpetrate family violence or litigation abuse; using AI where it risks the safety of a court user or child. Court users must disable chat history and web search where available, and refrain from entering confidential information into public tools. Cautioned: affidavits must reflect the witness's own knowledge in their own words. | Court users must verify GenAI output, and must not assume a tool is accurate because it is paid, commercial or closed. They must fact-check and proofread (not relying on GenAI to do it), and verify that cases, legislation, textbooks and articles exist and stand for the principles attributed, and that quotes are accurate, using reliable sources such as AustLII. | The Court may disregard material, order costs or another penalty, or refer the matter to a regulatory body. A lack of understanding of AI will not be accepted as justification for inadvertence. | who: 1.1, 1.4, 3.1; disclosure: 4.11, 4.10; uses: 5.5, 4.6, 4.20, 3.3, 5.4, 4.9; verification: 4.5, 4.7; consequences: 4.21, 3.3 |
| Administrative Review Tribunal Administrative Review Tribunal (Use of Generative AI) Practice Direction 2026 Official text · issued 2026-08-20 | All persons involved in Tribunal proceedings: parties, their legal and other representatives, litigation supporters, expert and non-expert witnesses, interpreters, translators, and people required to produce documents. | Disclosure is required where GenAI is used to summarise or analyse information a witness relies on, to translate evidence, to create images or recordings, or in any other way that might affect the relevance of evidence. It should appear prominently near the start of the document. The Tribunal may also require disclosure and certification in other cases, and a person must be able to explain, if asked, how GenAI was used. | Banned: using GenAI to make up, exaggerate, change or add to a person's evidence; entering confidential, privileged or otherwise protected information into a publicly available tool unless satisfied that doing so is lawful and authorised, or into a privately available tool unless satisfied it will remain confidential. Cautioned: GenAI-created images or recordings only in highly special circumstances; an expert report should contain the expert's own opinion and reasoning. | A person who uses GenAI must verify GenAI-assisted material, remains responsible for it, and must not rely only on the tool to verify its own output. The person responsible for a document must check that cited authorities exist and support the proposition, that chronologies are accurate, and that external sources can be traced to a real source. | The Tribunal may direct the person to correct, replace or withdraw the material, give it less or no weight, or decline to rely on it. Professional representatives may be referred to an appropriate regulatory body. | who: 1.5, 1.12; disclosure: 3.11, 3.13, 2.4; uses: 3.9, 3.20, 3.21, 3.11, 3.10; verification: 2.4, 3.6; consequences: 1.11 |
| Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Practice Note PNVCAT11: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (VCAT) Official text · issued 2025-12-22 | All proceedings in all Tribunal practice areas and all users engaging with the Tribunal ('parties'). Expert reports must also comply. | Parties should disclose GenAI use to the other parties and the Tribunal, for example by a statement on the front page. An expert must disclose in the report the GenAI tool used, including whether it was open-loop or closed-loop, what was uploaded to it and which portion of the report it helped prepare. A Member may request an assurance that documents have been verified. | Banned: uploading material subject to a non-publication or suppression order, material produced on subpoena, summons or discovery or filed in a Tribunal book, protected information, or material under a publication prohibition; using GenAI to generate an expert's opinion; misleading anyone about GenAI use. Cautioned: confidential, personal, identifying or health information should not be uploaded. | Where GenAI helped prepare submissions, the author is expected to have verified that citations and authorities exist, are accurate and are relevant; evidentiary material must reflect what the witness knows to be true. Verification must not be performed using a GenAI tool. Experts must verify their reports. | Relying on incorrect or non-existent AI-generated material may cause delay, lead the Tribunal to doubt the submissions' reliability, bring regulatory and disciplinary consequences for lawyers, and lead to adverse costs orders. | who: 3, 22; disclosure: 16, 17, 23, 18; uses: 14, 22, 12; verification: 19, 20, 21, 24; consequences: 10 |
| Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Practice Direction No. 10 of 2025: Accuracy of References in Submissions (QCAT) Official text · issued 2025-10-17 | The responsible person for written or oral submissions: the individual legal practitioner (not just the firm), or a self-represented litigant. | No duty to disclose AI use. The responsible person must be named at the end of written submissions; naming the firm is not enough. Naming a practitioner tells the Tribunal they have done the verification. | No use is banned. The direction targets the risk that AI produces non-existent sources or unchecked reformulations. | Practitioners must verify the accuracy and relevance of every reference to legislation, authorities or other sources, in written and oral submissions. Self-represented litigants must try to ensure the accuracy of their references. | Practitioners responsible for written or oral submissions containing references to non-existent cases, legislation or other material may face regulatory referral, a requirement to show cause against personal costs, or both. Parties relying on non-existent references: possible adjournment, doubt about the reliability of their submissions, and potentially an adverse costs order. | who: 5, 6, 16; disclosure: 6, 10; uses: 2; verification: 9, 11, 16; consequences: 14, 17 |
| County Court of Victoria Practice Note PNCCV 1-2026: The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users (County Court of Victoria) Official text · issued 2026-06-05 | All Court users: lawyers, litigants (represented or self-represented), and lay and expert witnesses. | No general duty to disclose AI use, but users must not mislead anyone about the nature of AI-assisted work, must be prepared to identify the portions produced with AI and explain how they were verified, and the Court may direct further information. | Confidential or sensitive information (including suppressed material) should not enter public AI tools. Closed tools require caution and checks of terms or settings to establish security. Particular caution is required for evidence and expert reports. Witness evidence must reflect personal knowledge and words. Expert reports must comply with the applicable code or practice note. | AI content must undergo meaningful human verification. Users should check that authorities exist and support the propositions attributed. Quotations must be checked for accuracy and correct attribution. Verification requires reliable sources. AI confirmation alone is insufficient, but original source material housed within an AI tool may be consulted. | Filing inaccurate documents could result in costs orders. Lawyers relying on unverified AI outputs may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and face personal costs orders. | who: 2.1; disclosure: 5.2, 6.5, 6.6; uses: 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12; verification: 6.1, 6.4; consequences: 5.4, 5.7 |
| Federal Court of Australia Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Federal Court of Australia) Official text · issued 2026-04-16 | All persons who appear before or file documents with the Court: litigants, whether or not they have a lawyer, witnesses, and third parties required to produce documents. | Disclosure is required where GenAI was used to summarise or analyse information a witness relies on, to create images, recordings or other multimedia presented to the Court, or in any other way that might reasonably be expected to affect the admissibility or use of evidence. It should appear at the start of the document and say where and how GenAI was used. The Court may require disclosure in other circumstances, and everyone should be able to tell the Court what GenAI was used, how and for what purpose. | Banned: entering or using information in a way that does not accord with the obligations attached to it, such as information under confidentiality, suppression or non-publication orders, privileged information, information subject to the implied obligation, or other confidential or private information without consent. Cautioned: in some circumstances it is inappropriate to use GenAI at all; even a ringfenced or confidential tool may breach obligations if its outputs are later used for other purposes; affidavits and witness statements must reflect the person's own recollection, knowledge and/or experience; an expert report should contain the expert's own opinion and reasoning; GenAI-created images or recordings only in highly special circumstances. | Where GenAI tools were used in preparing documents, the Court expects the responsible person to have confirmed that cited legal authorities exist and support the proposition stated, cited evidence exists and is reasonably likely to be admissible, chronologies are accurate, and the other listed points (pleaded facts, findings, lists of documents) are met. The list is not exhaustive. Users should know GenAI may give fictitious cases, citations or quotes, and may confirm information is accurate when it is not. | Presenting false or inaccurate information to the Court is unacceptable. Where GenAI is used inconsistently with the Practice Note or the Court's orders or directions, there could be consequences including adverse costs orders and issues as to compliance with legal and professional obligations. | who: 3.1; disclosure: 4.10, 4.11, 2.2, 2.3; uses: 4.15, 4.14, 2.1, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10; verification: 4.5, 4.6, 4.3; consequences: 4.4, 5.1 |
| Fair Work Commission Guidance Note: Use of generative artificial intelligence in Commission cases (Fair Work Commission) Official text · issued 2026-08-24 | Anyone who uses GenAI to help prepare an application or any other document to be lodged in a Commission case. Using GenAI only to check spelling or grammar, or to format a document, does not count. Legal practitioners and professional representatives have extra obligations. | Mandatory: the document must state that GenAI was used and how, and that its details have been checked (by completing the GenAI section of a Commission form, or by a statement in the document). A witness statement or declaration must also state that it is based on the person's own knowledge and reflects their own words, and declare it true to the best of their knowledge. | Cautioned: do not give personal information about another person in the case, or confidential case information, to public GenAI or any GenAI that may not keep it secure (and preferably not your own personal information either); do not use GenAI to create the factual content of a witness statement or declaration. GenAI is not a substitute for legal advice or research. Giving GenAI material covered by a Commission order restricting publication might breach the order and be an offence. | Before lodging, the person must check the document and correct it so that all details are correct and relevant: facts and evidence exist, cases, legislation, textbooks and articles exist and support the positions claimed, and quotes are accurate and correctly sourced. The checking must be done by a person, not by the same or another GenAI tool. Professional representatives must include hyperlinks to all case law cited (where available); others are recommended to. | Non-compliance may affect the case: documents given less weight or disregarded, an order to pay costs incurred by another party, or the case being dismissed. A complaint may be made to the legal services regulator of a legal practitioner who fails to meet their professional obligations. | who: 6, 7, 44; disclosure: 8, 9, 27, 13; uses: 14, 40, 35, 20, 23; verification: 9, 10, 31, 45, 11; consequences: 15, 44 |
| District Court of Western Australia No specific AI guidance found Official text · issued | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | |
| State Administrative Tribunal (WA) No specific AI guidance found Official text · issued | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. | No specific guidance found as at 26 October 2026. |
Instruments are labelled by jurisdiction: Victoria's SC Gen 23 (recordings of hearings) is a different note from NSW's SC Gen 23 (generative AI). Download rules.csv.