Who must verify a WA Supreme Court document?
A human who takes legal responsibility. Saying the tool wrote it is not an answer to an error.
Supreme Court of Western Australia
WA Supreme Court generative AI guidelines
The guidelines apply to lawyers, self-represented people and expert witnesses in Supreme Court proceedings. Generated content relied on in the Court must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Telling the Court that a tool prepared the document is not an answer to an error.
Practitioners who sign or file a document are responsible for its accuracy and its omissions. Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not be entered into a public or unsecured tool.
Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness’s own words. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct. Disclosure is required when the Court directs it, and where it is otherwise necessary so that nobody is misled about how the document was produced.
The guidelines say generative tools predict word sequences. They can be out of date, incomplete, fabricated, drawn from the wrong jurisdiction, or biased.
Confirm on the guidelines
The Supreme Court has published guidelines for generative AI in its proceedings. This page does not add a commencement date the guidelines’ public text, as read on 22 September 2026, did not state in the site note. Read the PDF for the date. A separate consultation draft of an AI practice direction is not these guidelines.
Guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence
Disclosure checklist
Work through this against the instrument, not instead of it. The checks do not record that the filing is done.
- Open the Supreme Court guidelines before any document for that Court is prepared with a tool.
- Verify the content, including omissions, before the document is signed or filed.
- Keep confidential, suppressed and privileged material out of public tools.
- Draft affidavits in the witness’s words and expert reports under the Harmonised Code.
- Disclose use when the Court directs it, or where it is otherwise necessary so that the Court is not misled.
- Do not assume the Magistrates Court or the State Administrative Tribunal has adopted the same text.
Sources
Every Australian court page
Each court has its own note. Open the one named on the file.
- AI practice note: Federal Court of Australia
- FCFCOA AI practice direction
- Fair Work Commission AI guidance note
- Administrative Review Tribunal generative AI practice direction
- SC Gen 23: generative AI in the NSW Supreme Court
- NSW Local Court generative AI practice note
- NSW District Court generative AI note
- NSW Land and Environment Court generative AI note
- NCAT generative AI directions
- Personal Injury Commission generative AI note
- SC Gen 25: Victoria AI practice note
- County Court of Victoria AI guidelines
- VCAT and generative AI
- Queensland courts AI practice direction
- Queensland District Court AI accuracy direction
- QCAT AI accuracy direction
- Queensland Planning and Environment Court and Land Court AI directions
- WA Supreme Court generative AI guidelines
- South Australia courts generative AI guidelines
- SAET generative AI guidelines
- Tasmania court AI practice notes
- ACT court AI practice notes
- Northern Territory court AI practice notes
- High Court of Australia and generative AI
See suggested levels for this court · All court AI notes · Jurisdiction tasks · Law firm AI policy guide · Practice areas
Questions
When must use be disclosed?
When the Court directs it, and where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate so that other parties and the Court are not misled about who did the work.
Do the guidelines bind every WA court?
They are for the Supreme Court. Confirm whether another WA court has adopted the same text before you assume it has.