There are welcome signs that employment tribunals are getting to grips with the ever-expanding use...
AI and tribunals
There are welcome signs that employment tribunals are getting to grips with the ever-expanding use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in litigation.
In a case in which Crossland Employment Solicitors is currently involved, we have received a Case Management Order (CMO) which deals specifically with the use of AI. (CMOs are instructions issued by the judge which instruct both parties which steps to take and the applicable deadlines.) This is the first instance where we’ve seen AI specifically dealt with in a CMO.
It states that:
You must not upload any of the following to a non-confidential AI system:
- documents provided by the other side
- documents sent by the tribunal, apart from documents published on the Employment Tribunal database, and/or
- the file of documents for the hearing/hearing bundle
Any Large Language Model AI, such as ChatGPT or Claude, is non-confidential.
If you use AI, you must ensure that all documents submitted to the tribunal or the other side:
- comply with the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 and any other relevant rules
- have been checked thoroughly by you for accuracy. You must ensure that factual, evidential and legal points, including references to legal cases, are correct and that the tribunal is not misled, and
- contain only relevant points, focus on the issues identified in the claim, are presented in an easily comprehensible manner and avoid repetition
If you have generated a document using AI you must:
- declare at the start of the document that you have used AI when creating or drafting the document, and
- confirm at the start of the document that you have complied with [the above] directions in respect of that document
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the CMO states that ‘if you fail to comply with these directions about the use of AI, the tribunal may make further orders, including: that the document is disregarded, or that the claim or response is struck out’.
The EAT has also recently dealt with the use of AI where claimants are bringing the case themselves – what are called ‘litigants in person’ (LiP). In Hancox v Sutherland, the EAT commented on a skeleton argument submitted by the employee which ran to 300 pages and had been generated by ChatGPT. The EAT described the skeleton argument as entirely unacceptable. The judge stressed that LiPs who use AI should ensure as a minimum that all documents submitted must:
- comply with applicable procedural rules
- have been checked as thoroughly as the litigant or representative is reasonably able for accuracy, ensuring that factual, evidential and legal points (including references to authorities) are correct and that the tribunal is not misled, and
- contain only relevant points, with the focus being on the central or best arguments, presented in an easily comprehensible manner and avoiding undue repetition
Also, in June 2026, Presidential Guidance on Applications for Interim Relief was published, following a sharp increase in the number of AI-generated applications for interim relief. At paragraph 29 the guidance says the following:
‘A particular difficulty arises in practice when legal submissions are generated using AI. While there is no objection in principle to the use of AI, it often results in submissions that are too long and complex, contain irrelevant material and fail to focus on the key points in the case. Litigants who use AI to assist them have a responsibility to ensure that what is submitted is concise, relevant and accurate’
Beverley Sunderland comments:
‘Although AI can be a useful tool for those not familiar with tribunal proceedings, those using it do not generally appreciate that AI is designed to tell them what they want to hear, designed to try and please them and it also does not differentiate between what is real case law and what is made up. Claimants also do not appear to understand that loading everything into ChatGPT/Claude puts everything into the public domain and will mean that if someone searches their name on this platform, all of this will be provided. The issuing of guidance and case management orders will be very useful going forward.’