knowledge 12 August 2026 |

Practice Direction HC142: High Court Publishes Guidance on Generative AI in Court Documents

HC142 joins similar guidance issued by the Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission and has regard to the judgment of Costello J in Guerin v O’Doherty [2026] IECA 48, in which the Court of Appeal refused to strike out defamation proceedings. One of the reasons cited was the defendant’s reliance on AI-generated material, which included references to non-existent authorities. HC142 adopts the majority of the Guerin guidelines, but stops short of requiring mandatory disclosure of AI-use in all cases. 

The publication of HC142 is the next step in the adoption and deployment of GenAI by the Irish Courts. In March, the Courts Service confirmed trials were being conducted for a number of AI tools such as a guidance retrieval chatbot and AI-enabled stenography. Developments are also underway in the UK. In January 2025, the UK Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) established a working group examining the use of AI by legal representatives for preparing court documents. While the final report is not due for publication until late 2026, a June update stated that there is strong consensus that existing professional responsibility frameworks are sufficient, and that additional specific AI-related requirements are not necessary. This is similar to the approach of the Irish Courts. UK guidance directed towards Judicial Office Holders was issued in October 2025.

HC142 – An Overview

Scope and Application

HC142 is broad in its scope. It applies to all Court Documents and to all persons involved in court proceedings including parties, legal practitioners, witnesses, experts, and third parties required by the Court to produce documents, as well as to litigants in person, who are subject to the same obligations of accuracy and candour as represented parties. Court Documents are described as all documents used in civil proceedings including pleadings, submissions, affidavits, witness statements and expert reports.

Risks and General Approach

The general approach taken by the Court is appropriately cautious. HC142 acknowledges that GenAI may reduce costs and enhance access to justice but emphasises this does not diminish or alter any obligation owed to the Court. The Practice Direction clearly outlines the risks: inaccuracy and “hallucinations” (false or misleading information such as fabricated cases, legislation, incorrect legal propositions or references), bias and incompleteness, factual errors, confidentiality and privacy risks, and the potential loss of legal privilege where information is entered into non-private GenAI tools.

Verification Obligations

Court users are fully responsible for the content of their documents, and blame for any inaccuracies cannot be shifted onto a GenAI Tool. HC142 imposes an obligation on all users to verify that content produced by GenAI is current, complete, accurate and relevant. Verification must be carried out under human control and supervision. Importantly, it is not sufficient to use the same or other GenAI tools to confirm accuracy, though users may verify content by referring to original source material housed within a GenAI Tool. In practical terms, this means practitioners must: (a) fact-check and proofread; (b) edit and adapt content to the particular circumstances of the case; and (c) verify that any references to case law, legislation, textbooks or articles exist and support the legal propositions attributed to them.

Document-Specific Requirements

HC142 sets out specific requirements for different document types. For pleadings, all facts must be verified, claims must be based on proper legal principles, and legal authorities must be checked to ensure they exist and support the cited proposition. For submissions, all authorities, citations, quotations and references must be independently verified using authoritative sources.

Fact Witnesses

Affidavits and witness statements attract particular requirements under HC142. As has always been the practice and expectation of the Courts, a witness statement or affidavit must reflect the witness’s own recollection, knowledge and evidence. Now, under HC142, unless the Court directs otherwise, the deponent or witness must include a declaration in one of the opening paragraphs of an affidavit or witness statement confirming that GenAI has not been used to generate the substantive content (including by altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing the evidence) and that the document reflects a witness’s personal knowledge and recollection. Use of GenAI for administrative purposes such as formatting or spell-checking (or ancillary purposes unconnected to the generation of substantive content) is permitted, and does not prevent the deponent from making the required declaration that GenAI was not used to generate the substantive content of their evidence.

Expert Witnesses

Expert reports require a similar declaration and, where GenAI has been used, the expert must disclose the nature and extent of that use to enable the Court to assess the reliability and independence of the opinion.

Transparency

Regarding transparency, the use of GenAI in preparing a Court Document does not in itself require disclosure. However, where directed by the Court, a party must disclose whether GenAI tools were used and, if so, the nature and extent of that use. All persons are expected to be in a position to inform the Court if requested. Additionally, GenAI tools should not be used in respect of information or documents subject to court orders or undertakings restricting their use, if doing so would create a risk of disclosure or dissemination contrary to that order or undertaking.

Addressing Issues and Consequences

HC142 establishes a structured engagement process for addressing concerns regarding the accuracy of Court Documents. If a party identifies a potential issue with another party’s Court Documents (whether or not due to GenAI use), they should draw it to that party’s attention and, absent an appropriate response within a reasonable period, bring it to the Court’s attention. If a party or its legal representatives identify an issue with the accuracy of their own documents, they must notify the other parties and the Court without delay, explaining the issue, substituting clean and marked-up versions, and bearing the costs unless the Court orders otherwise.

Non-compliance is sanctioned by the Court, which may impose adverse cost orders, disregard Court Documents, or strike out a claim or defence. Legal practitioners may additionally face a referral to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority or personal costs orders.

Conclusion

Though artificial intelligence continues to proliferate every facet of our lives at remarkable speed, the approach taken by the Irish judiciary is measured and cautious. HC142 provides a comprehensive framework emphasising human oversight, verification obligations, and clear duties on legal practitioners to inform clients and witnesses. Practitioners will, of course, be well familiar with the professional and ethical obligations they owe to the Courts. HC142 does not create an entirely new framework of duties; rather, it re-emphasises and supplements those existing obligations in the specific context of the use of GenAI, making clear that the standards of accuracy, competence and candour long required of practitioners apply with equal force when such tools are employed. Rather than prohibiting GenAI, the Court has opted for transparency and accountability, with consequences for non-compliance. The built-in provision for regular review ensures HC142 can evolve alongside the technology it governs.  

Please contact one of the key contacts below for further information.