Reporting upon the development and adoption of generative AI in the context of employment-related disputes and litigation is invariably a two-sided affair. In many respects, generative AI has enabled an improved awareness and understanding of employment rights and can facilitate access to justice for unrepresented complainants faced with articulating and presenting their case whilst navigating complex procedural rules. 

There have also been a number of notable examples of AI-assisted litigation that have taken a disproportionate share of an already stretched Tribunal capacity. Earlier this month, our colleagues reported on the case of Hancox v Sutherland, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) set out clear expectations on parties when using generative AI in proceedings, in the face of excessively lengthy documentation emanating from an unrepresented party. 

Employees are increasingly using generative AI tools to draft workplace grievances which place a significant burden on insureds. Insureds are looking to their insurers for support.

Of course, Gen-AI is not the sole driver of an uptick in employment-related disputes. Economic headwinds increase the likelihood of insolvency and other corporate transactions which are all putting pressure on employers and the courts. 

However, Tribunal capacity has not kept pace and as a result, parties are facing significant delays. The government recognises the significant pressures facing the Employment Tribunal.  A July 2026 Parliamentary written answer (responding to the question of whether the delays are deterring workers bringing legitimate claims) notes that hearings longer than 2 days are particularly problematic and that in some regions will not be heard before 2028 or 2029. 

EPL-specific impacts

It is easy to see how such a landscape can translate into an increased pressure on policy coverage, claims handling, defence costs and claim lifecycle. 

Underwriting

Insurers may wish to focus their rating and risk selection more sharply on an employer's grievance handling processes, including manager training, investigation capability and documentation culture, as even where a grievance is AI-generated, employers remain obliged to respond to it fairly and to evidence that they have done so.  

Wordings

AI-assisted grievances can generate substantial cost before proceedings are issued and so pre-claim costs covers should always be considered carefully. Similarly, extended discovery and reporting periods coupled with robust obligations around the handling of claims are of particular relevance given the upward pressure on lifecycle and the fact that Tribunals can adjust awards by up to 25% for an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, creating enhanced quantum risk.