AI found to “obscure rather than illuminate” proceedings before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal proceedings has prompted fresh judicial guidance from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), following a case in which a litigant submitted a 300-page Skeleton Argument generated using ChatGPT.

The case involved Mr. Hancox who pursued an employment claim against four individual Respondents. The claim struck out by the Employment Tribunal, on the basis that he had conducted the proceedings in a scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious manner. 

Mr Hancox appealed the matter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where his  conduct during proceeding has once again come under scrutiny. In particular, Mr. Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court) examined Mr Hancox’s use of artificial intelligence when preparing documents for the appeal and took the opportunity to provide wider guidance to litigants on the responsible use of AI in legal proceedings.

The 300-Page ChatGPT Skeleton Argument

Prior to the Hearing, Mr. Hancox had submitted a 300-page Skeleton Argument which had been created using ChatGPT, running to almost 132,000 words.  In his covering email, Mr Hancox acknowledged that the Judge would be unable to read the Skeleton Argument in its entirety and requested that the Respondents identify any errors in it by 4.00 p.m. the following day.

Skeleton Arguments are expected to be precisely that. A skeleton of a party’s argument  and run to between 5 and 15 pages, providing a concise summary of the legal and factual issues in dispute.

Rather than assisting the Tribunal, the Judge found the AI-generated document was wholly unacceptable and had “served to obscure rather than to illuminate” the proceedings. 

What did the Employment Appeal Tribunal say about AI?

The Judge accepted that AI is being increasingly used by parties and does very much assist those who have no access to professional legal representation.  However, he highlighted the significant risks associated with relying on generative AI, including that “the output may be inaccurate (including on legal issues,) unfocused, excessive, or that it might not comply with procedural requirements.”

Guidance for Litigants using AI

Interestingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the Judge took the view that “AI is likely to have a continuing and important role in the conduct of litigation in the future”, despite it being affected by inbuilt biases, containing false information, and at times, hallucinating by citing fake caselaw. 

The  guidance provided by the EAT states that all Litigants who use AI should ensure, at a minimum, that all documents submitted:

• Comply with applicable procedural rules – Documents must meet all applicable court or tribunal requirements relating to content, format and filing.

• Are thoroughly checked for accuracy – Parties must ensure, so far as reasonably possible, that all  factual, evidential, and legal points are correct and that the Court or Tribunal is not misled.

• Focus only on relevant points – Submissions should contain only the points necessary to determine the dispute, presented clearly and concisely whilst avoiding unnecessary repetition.

He did, however, emphasise that anyone choosing to use AI remains fully responsible for the documents they submit to a Court or Tribunal. Simply submitting the product of generative AI to a Court or Tribunal or placing the onus to check a document onto an opponent, is not acceptable.  Where concerns arise that necessary checks have not been undertaken, sanctions may follow.

In summary, the Judge made it abundantly apparent that the use of AI is not prohibited for tasks such as preparing Skeleton Arguments, but all litigants must take responsibility themselves for any documents submitted to the Tribunal and they must be carefully checked.

Why does this matter for Employers and HR Professionals?

Whilst the case concerned an unrepresented litigant, the lessons extend far beyond Employment Tribunal proceedings.

AI tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude and Gemini, are increasingly being used in workplaces to assist with drafting grievance responses, disciplinary documentation, appeal outcomes, investigation reports and even correspondence relating to Employment Tribunal claims.

This decision serves as a timely reminder that AI should support professional judgment rather than replace it. Any individual or organisation using AI-generated content remains responsible for its accuracy, relevance and compliance with applicable legal and procedural requirements.

Employers should therefore ensure that any AI-generated material is carefully reviewed before being relied upon in workplace processes or legal proceedings. This includes reviewing contracts, policies, procedures and employment documentation to ensure they remain legally compliant and fit for purpose. For organisations looking for ongoing support, our smartHR employment law retainer provides access to experienced employment lawyers who can review documents, advise on workplace issues and help employers navigate an increasingly complex legal and technological landscape.

Use AI with Caution

AI is here to stay, and its use will only increase, as doubtless will robust judicial guidance.  For the time being, the words of this Judge cannot be ignored, but should be carefully heeded when any party to litigation considers using AI to prepare documents.

Of course, AI has its place, but the message which all parties must receive loud and clear is to use it responsibly and only after very careful checking and review.

For more information on this case, or any employment law or HR-related matter, please contact a member of our Employment Team.