On 29 July 2026, the President of the High Court issued a Practice Direction concerning the responsible use of generative AI (GenAI) tools in court documents. 

Practice Direction HC 142, which comes into operation on 1 September 2026, is intended to provide guidance on the Court’s expectations regarding the use of GenAI in legal proceedings, and highlights the risks associated with the use of GenAI tools, the obligations of parties, and the potential consequences for non-compliance with the Practice Direction.

Scope of Practice Direction

The Practice Direction applies broadly to all documents used in proceedings in the High Court, including pleadings, submissions, affidavits, witness statements and expert reports ('court documents'), and to all persons involved in those proceedings, including parties, litigants in person, legal practitioners, witnesses, experts and any other third party required to produce documents. Importantly, it applies to all proceedings before the Court whether they were instituted before or after 1 September 2026, and applies to all documents prepared, produced or generated after 1 September 2026. 

Risks and responsibilities  

The Practice Direction identifies a number of known risks and limitations of using GenAI tools, including inaccurate output and hallucinations, bias and incompleteness, factual errors, and confidentiality and privacy risks. It also highlights the risk that information entered into GenAI tools may be required to be disclosed in legal proceedings and may lose the protections of legal privilege. 

The Practice Direction provides that persons using GenAI in proceedings should have a reasonable understanding of the limitations and risks associated with use of GenAI tools and that a person responsible for a court document must ensure that any material generated with the assistance of a GenAI tool has been appropriately and independently verified before it is used in proceedings, and any limitation on the ability to do this must be disclosed to the Court. 

Legal practitioners are reminded of their professional and ethical obligations, which are not diminished or altered by using GenAI to assist in the completion of legal tasks. Practitioners are also required to ensure their clients understand their duty to the Court and that persons swearing affidavits or making witness statements understand their personal responsibility to confirm the truth and completeness of such documents. 

Verification 

Content produced using GenAI must be verified under human control and supervision, and it is not sufficient to use the same GenAI tool to verify the information. Material should be fact-checked, proofread, edited and adapted as needed and any case law, legislation or other sources must be verified. Users should be in a position to inform the Court of the nature and extent of their use of GenAI to prepare a court document, and may be directed by the Court to do so. 

Requirements for particular categories of documents 

The use of GenAI tools does not of itself require disclosure to the Court; however, the Practice Direction does provide for specific requirements for certain categories of documents:

• Affidavits and witness statements: Unless the Court otherwise directs, from 1 September 2026, the person making a witness statement or swearing an affidavit must include a declaration in the document confirming that GenAI was not used for generating substantive content in the document.
• Expert reports: Expert reports must include a declaration confirming that GenAI has not been used to generate the substantive content of the report. Where GenAI tools have been used, the expert must disclose the nature and extent of that use to the Court.

In addition to the above disclosure requirements, the Practice Direction provides that, in any pleadings put before the Court, parties ensure that all pleaded facts have been verified and checked, any claim for relief is based on proper legal principles, that legal authorities have been verified and chronologies are checked for accuracy. All legal authorities, citations, quotations and references relied upon in submissions must be independently verified. 

Consequences of non-compliance 

Failure to comply with the Practice Direction may result in sanctions against the non-compliant party, including adverse costs orders, orders disregarding or rejecting court documents, or the striking out of a party’s claim or defence. Legal practitioners who do not comply may be referred to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority and could also have costs orders made against them personally. 

Key takeaways for litigants and practitioners 

The Practice Direction signals a clear message from the High Court that caution must be exercised when using GenAI tools in the preparation of court documents.  Practitioners and litigants should ensure that court documents prepared with the assistance of GenAI tools are thoroughly reviewed and verified, and that the appropriate declarations are made when required.  Failure to comply could have significant consequences for parties to proceedings and their advisors. 

If you have any queries in respect of any of the implications of this Practice Direction, or the use of GenAI tools generally, please feel free to reach out to our team.