Home / Court AI rules tracker
Updated 28 October 2026
What Australian courts require when you use AI.
Every court and tribunal practice note on generative AI in one place, in plain English, with a link to the court's own document. For practitioners who use AI and want to stay on the right side of it.
Rather we set it up with you? Book a 15 minute set-up call.
Available on Microsoft AppSource for Outlook on Windows, Mac and the web
The short version
- Everywhere: you are responsible for anything AI helped produce. Check every case, section and quote yourself, and do not use another AI tool to do the checking.
- Evidence is off limits: affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words and knowledge. In NSW, Gen AI must not be used to generate their content at all, and the forms now carry a statement saying so.
- Disclosure varies: NSW requires statements on evidence and expert reports. The Federal Court, the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Fair Work Commission require disclosure in set situations. Victoria, the Federal Circuit and Family Court, WA, SA and Tasmania expect you to be able to explain your use if asked.
- Queensland: written submissions must name the individual who verified every reference.
- Confidentiality: keep suppressed, subpoenaed and privileged material out of public AI tools.
This page summarises published court material as at 28 October 2026. It is not legal advice. Courts update these documents often, so read the current version on the court's website before relying on it. Rows marked check source rest partly on a secondary source or have a detail we could not confirm. Spotted a change? Email hello@ailegaltoolbox.com.au.
Court by court
Federal courts and tribunals · New South Wales · Victoria · Queensland · Western Australia · South Australia · Tasmania · Australian Capital Territory · Northern Territory
Federal courts and tribunals
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Court of Australia | No AI-specific rule found. No AI-specific practice direction. Current practice directions (latest No 2 of 2024) do not address generative AI. | Court page | ||
| Federal Court of Australia Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) | 16 April 2026 (on issue) | Partly | Users must understand AI's limits and the responsible person must verify that cited authorities exist and support the proposition; affidavits, witness statements and expert reports must reflect the person's own knowledge, recollection or opinion. Consider confidentiality, privilege and suppression before entering material into a tool; non-compliance may lead to adverse costs orders. | Court page |
| Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1 and Division 2) FCFCOA Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence (PD-AI) | 29 May 2026 (on issue) | If asked | Verify all AI output, including that cases and legislation exist and support the propositions; affidavits must be in the witness's own words and knowledge, and AI must not be used for family violence or litigation abuse. Suppressed, subpoenaed or similarly restricted material must not go into a GenAI tool unless it is closed, confidential, not used for training and used only for that proceeding. | Court page |
| Administrative Review Tribunal (successor to the AAT) Administrative Review Tribunal (Use of Generative AI) Practice Direction 2026 | 20 August 2026 | Partly | Users must verify AI-assisted material (not with the same tool), check cited authorities exist and support the proposition, and must not use AI to make up, exaggerate, change or add to a person's evidence. Handle confidential, privileged or protected information carefully before entering it into any tool. | Court page |
| Fair Work Commission Guidance Note: Use of generative artificial intelligence in Commission cases check source | 20 October 2026 | Yes | Personally check that the document is correct and relevant using reliable sources (asking an AI tool to check is not enough). Witness statements and declarations must be based on the witness's own knowledge and words. | Court page |
New South Wales
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23 - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) | 3 February 2025 | Yes | Gen AI must not be used to generate or alter the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, and must not be used for expert reports (or annexures/exhibits) without prior leave. Written submissions prepared with Gen AI must verify in the document that every citation exists and is accurate and relevant (not using AI), and suppressed, Harman or subpoenaed material must not be entered into Gen AI unless strict confidentiality conditions are met. | Court page |
| NSW courts applying the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (civil proceedings, including Supreme, District, Local Court and LEC) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW): r 35.3B 'Use of generative artificial intelligence in affidavits', amended r 31.4, r 31.27 and Sch 7, Forms 40 (affidavit) and 163 (witness statement); r 35.3B and the forms later amended by Uniform Civil Procedure (Amendment No 106) Rule 2025 check source | 3 February 2025 | Yes | Gives rule-based force to the ban on using Gen AI to generate affidavit and witness statement content, including (from August 2025) altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing a deponent's evidence. The expert report rule and expert code of conduct were also amended. | Summary |
| Land and Environment Court of NSW Practice Note - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) check source | 3 February 2025 | Yes | Same terms as Supreme Court SC Gen 23: no Gen AI to generate or alter affidavits, witness statements or character references, and no Gen AI in expert reports without leave. Submissions must verify citations, and restricted material must not be entered into Gen AI. | Court page |
| District Court of NSW District Court General Practice Note 2 - Generative AI Practice Note (adopts SC Gen 23 as amended from time to time) | 3 February 2025 | Yes | Adopts Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 in full. Same bans on Gen AI generating evidence and on unleaved use in expert reports, plus citation verification. | Court page |
| Local Court of NSW Practice Note - Generative Artificial Intelligence (adopts SC Gen 23 as amended from time to time) | 12 January 2026 | Yes | Adopts Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 in its current form. No additional Local Court specific requirements. | Court page |
| NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) NCAT Procedural Direction 7 - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) | 7 April 2025 | Partly | Gen AI must not generate or alter statements, affidavits, statutory declarations or character references, and needs leave for expert reports. Submissions prepared with Gen AI must verify all citations (not with AI), and restricted material must not be entered into Gen AI. | Court page |
| Industrial Relations Commission of NSW Practice Note No 33 - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) | 19 February 2025 | Yes | Mirrors SC Gen 23: no Gen AI to generate or alter affidavits, witness statements or character references, and expert reports need leave. Submissions must verify citations (not solely with AI). | Court page |
| Personal Injury Commission of NSW Procedural Direction PIC13 - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence | 1 January 2026 | Yes | Adopts SC Gen 23 as far as practicable: no Gen AI to generate witness statements, and citations must be verified without AI. Parties must not use AI tools (including transcription or AI assistants) in Commission listings. | Court page |
Victoria
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Note SC Gen 25 - The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users | 14 May 2026 | If asked | Users must verify AI output, including that cited cases and legislation exist and support the proposition (asking another AI tool is not enough), and particular caution applies to affidavits, witness statements and expert reports, which must reflect the person's own knowledge and words. Confidential or suppressed material must not be entered into public AI tools; lawyers relying on unverified output risk referral to the VLSB+C and personal costs orders. | Court page |
| County Court of Victoria Practice Note PNCCV 1-2026 (use of artificial intelligence by court users) check source | 5 June 2026 | If asked | Substantially similar to Supreme Court SC Gen 25: verify AI output and citations (not with AI), keep evidence in the witness's own knowledge and words, and keep confidential material out of public AI tools. Lawyers relying on unverified output risk referral to the VLSB+C and personal costs orders. | Summary |
| Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Practice Note PNVCAT 11 - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence | 22 December 2025 | Partly | Parties are responsible for documents they file and must independently verify citations and facts, without using a Gen AI tool to verify. Gen AI must not generate an expert's opinion, and suppressed, subpoenaed or protected material must not be uploaded. | Court page |
| Magistrates' Court of Victoria | No AI-specific rule found. No AI-specific practice direction found. Current practice directions (for example Practice Direction No 1 of 2026) do not mention AI. | Court page | ||
Queensland
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Queensland courts and tribunals (Supreme, District, Planning and Environment, Magistrates, Land, Childrens, Industrial Courts, QIRC, QCAT) The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers | 15 September 2025 | No | Verify everything a chatbot produces, as it can invent cases and quotes, and take particular care that affidavits and witness statements reflect the person's own knowledge and words. Do not enter private, confidential, suppressed or privileged information; fake citations can lead to costs orders. | Court page |
| Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction Number 5 of 2025 - Accuracy of References in Submissions | 24 September 2025 (on issue) | No | Written submissions must name the individual responsible person (not just the firm), who must verify every reference to legislation, authorities and other sources. By signing, a practitioner tells the Court this was done; non-existent references can lead to referral to the Legal Services Commissioner. | Court page |
| Supreme Court of Queensland (criminal) Practice Direction 14 of 2024 - Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (other than sentences), as amended | Amendment announced 10 September 2025 (on issue) | Yes, for experts who use generative AI in forming or expressing opinions | Experts who use generative AI to formulate or express an opinion must say so and explain the program and how it was used. Per a secondary source they must also annex full prompts, inputs and outputs and identify known limitations or biases. | Court page |
| District Court of Queensland District Court Practice Direction 12 of 2025 - Accuracy of references in submissions check source | September 2025 (on issue) | No | Same terms as Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025: name the individual responsible person and verify every reference. Practitioners citing non-existent material risk referral to the Legal Services Commissioner. | Court page |
| Land Court of Queensland Practice Direction 4 of 2025 - Accuracy of References in Submissions | 29 September 2025 | No | Name the individual responsible person at the end of written submissions and verify every reference. Non-existent references can lead to referral or personal costs for practitioners and adverse costs for self-represented parties. | Court page |
| Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) QCAT Practice Direction No 10 of 2025 - Accuracy of References in Submissions | 17 October 2025 (on issue) | No | Name the individual responsible person and verify all references to legislation and authorities. Non-existent references risk referral, show-cause on costs, adjournment or adverse costs. | Court page |
| Queensland Industrial Relations Commission Practice Direction Number 1 of 2026 - Accuracy of References in Submissions | 26 May 2026 (on issue) | No | Same model as Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025: name the responsible person and verify all references. Self-represented parties should follow the non-lawyer AI guidelines. | Court page |
Western Australia
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Western Australia Guidelines for the use of generative AI | Not stated | If directed | AI-generated content must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility for the document, and confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not go into public or unsecured tools. Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words, and experts must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct. | Court page |
South Australia
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme, District, Magistrates, Youth, Environment Resources and Development Courts and Court of Disputed Returns Guidelines concerning the use of Generative artificial intelligence in litigation in South Australian Courts (with an Information Sheet for self-represented litigants) check source | 1 January 2026 | If asked | Practitioners remain responsible for and must verify all Gen AI output; AI must not be used to alter, embellish, minimise or manufacture evidence, and expert opinions must remain the expert's own. Courts caution that using Gen AI to prepare evidence such as expert reports may often be inappropriate. | Court page |
| South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) Adoption of the Supreme Court Generative AI Guidelines and self-represented litigant Information Sheet | 25 to 26 June 2026 (on issue) | If asked | Applies the SA courts' Gen AI Guidelines to SAET proceedings. SAET will review its application regularly. | Court page |
Tasmania
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Tasmania Circular to Practitioners No 14 of 2026 - Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence check source | 21 October 2026 | No certification required, but users must disclose if asked and be able to explain tools and checks; expert witnesses must disclose Gen AI use under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct | Anyone who uses Gen AI must verify all content before filing (accuracy, existence of authorities, authenticity of media), with particular caution for pleadings, submissions, affidavits and expert reports. Confidential, privileged or suppressed information should not be entered into a tool that is not closed; lawyers may be referred to the Legal Profession Board. | Summary |
Australian Capital Territory
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT Supreme Court and ACT Magistrates Court | No AI-specific rule found. No AI-specific practice direction or notice to practitioners found; the latest practice directions (to PD 9 of 2026) and notices (to 8 October 2026) do not mention AI. | Court page | ||
Northern Territory
| Court and rule | In force | Disclose AI use? | What it means for you | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of the Northern Territory | No AI-specific rule found. No AI-specific practice direction found among current practice directions. | Court page | ||
What the regulators say
- Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice (Law Society of NSW, Legal Practice Board of WA, Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner) (6 December 2024). Lawyers must verify AI output, keep confidential client information out of public tools, exercise independent judgment and bill accurately. Practices should adopt risk-based AI policies and supervise staff. Source
- A solicitor's guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence (Law Society of NSW) (Updated January 2026). Check all AI output and do not use AI to verify AI-produced sources; keep confidential client information out of public tools (Rule 9). Principals must supervise AI use, and solicitors must comply with court practice notes (Rule 19). Source
- Guidance Statement No 37 - Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice (Queensland Law Society) (31 May 2024). Have enough legal knowledge to detect AI errors and check each piece of AI work; avoid tools whose terms do not protect confidentiality or exclude training. AI subscription costs are generally overhead, and time entries must not be inflated. Source
- AI Hub: Frequently Asked Questions (Law Society of South Australia) (Not stated). Summarises SA courts' guidance: evidence must reflect the witness's own memory and AI must not alter or manufacture it; expert opinions must remain the expert's own. Check AI research against authoritative sources. Source
Where AI Legal Toolbox fits
The common thread in every rule above is verification. Nova, the AI paralegal in AI Legal Toolbox, only quotes a case name, citation or section number when it appears in a source in front of her, and software removes anything she cannot point to before you see it. Drafts are saved to your Outlook drafts folder, never sent, so a practitioner reviews every word. Read how that works.
That supports your obligations. It does not replace them: you still need to check what you file.
Questions practitioners ask
Do I have to tell the court I used AI?
It depends on the court and the document. NSW requires statements on affidavits, witness statements and some expert reports. The Federal Court, Administrative Review Tribunal and Fair Work Commission require disclosure in set situations. Most other courts expect you to be able to explain your use if asked. Check the rule for your court above.
Can I use AI to draft an affidavit?
Generally not for the content. NSW prohibits using Gen AI to generate or alter the content of affidavits and witness statements, and every other court with a rule requires evidence to reflect the witness's own knowledge and words.
Can I use AI to help with submissions?
In most courts, yes, provided you verify every citation and reference yourself. In Queensland the submission must name the person responsible for that check, and in NSW a submission prepared with Gen AI must say the citations were verified.
How often is this page updated?
We review it regularly and whenever a court announces a change. The date at the top shows when it was last checked.
See it on your own matters
Start with 7 days free, then $149 per practitioner per month, including GST, with no setup fee and no minimum term. Cancel any time. Rather not do it yourself? We will set it up with you on a 15 minute call, on your own correspondence.