Every Australian court AI practice note, explained

Why the courts moved first

The trigger was not theory. In Valu v Minister for Immigration (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95, a solicitor filed submissions containing seventeen cases that did not exist, generated by ChatGPT, and was referred to the NSW Legal Services Commissioner. In August 2025 the Victorian Legal Services Board took Australia's first regulatory action for AI misuse, varying a solicitor's practising certificate after AI-generated citations were filed in a family law matter. The solicitor was barred from practising as a principal and placed under two years of supervised practice.

Courts answer to the integrity of their own record. A fabricated authority wastes judicial time, misleads opponents and, left unchecked, corrodes the system of precedent. So the courts used the tool they already had, the practice note, and the profession's regulators followed with a joint statement in December 2024 that these are existing duties restated, not new ones invented.

New South Wales. Practice Note SC Gen 23

Issued by the Supreme Court of NSW on 28 January 2025 and in force since 3 February 2025, SC Gen 23 remains the most prescriptive court rule on AI in the country. Its distinctive feature is a set of flat prohibitions rather than a verification duty alone.

• No generative AI in evidence. It must not be used to create the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, and those documents must positively state that AI was not used in their preparation.
• Protected material stays out. Suppressed, subpoenaed or Harman-protected material must not be entered into AI tools except under strict conditions.
• Verify against the primary source. Where AI assists with written submissions, the author must check every citation against the original and must not use another AI tool to do the checking.
• Experts need leave. Using generative AI in an expert report requires the court's prior permission.

The note has propagated. The NSW District Court, Local Court, NCAT and the Personal Injury Commission have adopted equivalent rules. The Supreme Court ran a review with submissions closing 18 December 2025, and as at October 2026 no revised version has been published, so the February 2025 text remains the operative one.

Victoria. SC GEN 25, the County Court and VCAT

Victoria took a staged path. The Supreme Court published guidelines in May 2024, the Victorian Law Reform Commission tabled Australia's first law reform report on AI in courts and tribunals on 3 February 2026 with thirty recommendations, and the court then replaced its guidelines with a formal practice note.

Practice Note SC GEN 25

Issued and commenced on 14 May 2026, SC GEN 25 governs the use of AI by court users in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Court users remain responsible for the content of their documents whether or not AI was involved. They must be able to identify which portions were AI-produced and explain how the output was verified, with what the court calls meaningful human control. One AI tool may not be used to check another. Inaccurate filings expose parties to costs orders and practitioners to sanction. Companion judicial guidelines prohibit generative AI in judicial decision-making, giving effect to the VLRC's central recommendation.

The County Court and VCAT

The County Court of Victoria followed on 9 June 2026 with practice note PNCCV 1-2026. VCAT had moved earlier: Practice Note PNVCAT11 on generative AI took effect on 22 December 2025 and applies to every party and representative before the tribunal, including the many self-represented applicants. It requires users to confirm that cited cases, legislation and quotes exist and say what they are claimed to say, and it bars confidential or suppressed material from public AI tools. Victoria's higher courts and its tribunal are therefore all now covered by formal instruments.

The Federal Court. GPN-AI

The Federal Court published its generative AI practice note, GPN-AI, on 16 April 2026 after a consultation with the profession that ran for about a year. It applies to everyone who appears before the court or files documents with it. AI-assisted documents must be verified for reliability and accuracy. Confidential or privileged information must not be entered into AI tools contrary to existing obligations. The note distinguishes open public AI tools from closed enterprise tools, which is the first time an Australian court has drawn that line in a binding instrument, and it identifies circumstances in which the court may require disclosure of generative AI use.

The practical difference from NSW is tone rather than substance. GPN-AI is principles-based and leaves room for enterprise tools with proper controls. The verification duty is the same.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court. PD-AI

The Chief Justice issued Practice Direction PD-AI on 29 May 2026 after work by the Courts' AI Committee and consultation inside and outside the court. It applies to all court users, including self-represented litigants, lawyers and private experts, and is built on principles of integrity, accuracy, accountability, professional compliance, confidentiality and safety.

Two features stand out for family practice. Affidavits must be in the witness's own words and based on their own knowledge, which echoes SC Gen 23 without the outright ban. And the direction reaches experts directly: an expert must comply with it when preparing a report, and a lawyer who engages a private expert must give them a copy and obtain their certification that they have read it. Subpoenaed and suppressed material is restricted from AI tools, as in NSW.

Queensland. A different route to the same place

Queensland did not write an AI practice note. Instead, its Supreme, District and Planning and Environment Courts issued practice directions on the accuracy of references in submissions, led by Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025, which require a named person to take responsibility for the contents of a submission and impose verification obligations for every reference. Expert evidence rules in criminal proceedings were amended to require experts to disclose the generative AI program used, its inputs and outputs and known limitations. Queensland Courts also maintain generative AI guidelines for judicial officers and for self-represented litigants, amended in September 2025. No 2026 update has been published.

The effect is close to the other jurisdictions. Whether the rule says “verify your AI output” or “a named person is responsible for every reference,” a hallucinated citation lands on a human.

The Fair Work Commission from 20 October 2026

The Commission is a tribunal rather than a court, and most of the people before it are not lawyers, which is why its guidance note matters beyond the profession. After 28 submissions on a March 2026 exposure draft and a commissioned research study, the FWC published its final guidance note on generative AI in Commission cases on 24 August 2026. It takes effect on 20 October 2026.

• Anyone who uses generative AI to create, write, edit or otherwise prepare a document for a Commission case, apart from spell-checking, grammar and formatting, must state in the document that AI was used and how.
• They must check that every fact, piece of evidence, case, statute, quote and extract exists and supports the stated position, and say that they have done so.
• Witness statements and declarations must be based on the witness's own knowledge, in their own words, and true.
• Lawyers and paid agents must hyperlink all cited case law.

For an HR manager drafting an unfair dismissal response with a chatbot, this is the first time a disclosure duty has applied to them personally.

The common thread

Strip the instruments back and four rules recur in every jurisdiction.

• You own the output. Responsibility for accuracy sits with the person who files, regardless of the tool.
• Verify against the source, by hand. Every citation, quote and reference is checked against the primary document, never with another AI.
• Protected material stays out of public tools. Confidential, privileged, suppressed and subpoenaed material is a near-absolute prohibition.
• Evidence is human. Affidavits and witness statements reflect the witness's own knowledge and words, and in NSW must say that AI was not used.

Disclosure is the point of difference. The FWC requires it outright, the Federal Court may require it, Victoria requires that you be able to identify AI-produced portions on request, and NSW requires a positive statement only for evidence. A firm that discloses by default is compliant everywhere.

What a firm should do this month

• Keep a matter-level checklist by jurisdiction, because the operative instrument differs between NSW, Victoria, Queensland, the Federal Court, the Family Court and the FWC.
• Adopt a written AI use policy that names approved tools, prohibited tasks and supervision arrangements, mapped to Solicitors' Conduct Rules 4, 9, 17, 19 and 37. The Law Society of NSW's solicitor's guide, updated January 2026, does the mapping for you.
• Record which portions of a document were AI-assisted, the tool used and how the output was verified. Several courts can ask.
• Prepare clients. The Queensland Law Society and its counterparts published a template client warning on AI and confidential information in April 2026.
• Bill for the work done, not the time AI saved. The joint regulators' statement is explicit on this.
• Diarise 20 October 2026 for anyone in the firm who appears in the Fair Work Commission, and 10 December 2026 for the Privacy Act's automated decision-making disclosure, which catches firms using AI in intake, conflicts or pricing like any other business.

Questions people ask