---
title: "How to use AI for chronologies in Australia"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/guides/ai-chronology-australia"
type: "how_to_guide"
site: "AI Law Framework"
practice_area: "Litigation and tribunals"
---

# How to use AI for chronologies in Australia

> A chronology is only as good as the document each line points to. The tool extracts dates. A person checks them and marks what is disputed.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/guides/ai-chronology-australia

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Check this before you rely on it

Client documents in a chronology are confidential. The Uniform Law statement, the Law Society of New South Wales guide and Queensland Guidance Statement No. 37 apply before the bundle is uploaded.

## Steps

1. **Collect the source documents first.** The chronology is built from the documents you hold, not from the model’s sense of what probably happened. If the file is in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the practice direction restricts subpoenaed and child-related material in a tool that is not a closed environment.
2. **Extract dated events with a document reference.** Ask for the date, the event and the document identifier. A line without a document is a guess. Queensland Guidance Statement No. 37 is the confidentiality check on the upload.
3. **Check each entry against its source.** Open the document and confirm the date and the event. The Law Society of New South Wales guide expects that check from the solicitor, not from a second prompt. Fix transpositions. They are common with dates.
4. **Mark what is disputed.** Label entries the other side does not accept, and entries that are submission rather than fact. A chronology that hides the dispute is not a chronology the Court can use. The Uniform Law statement keeps responsibility for that judgement with you.

## Tools named in this guide

| Tool | Australian data hosting | Profile region | Pricing model | Capabilities |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Relativity aiR](https://ailawframework.com/software/relativity.md) | Offered | yes | Enterprise quote | eDiscovery document review, Chronology building, Document summarisation, Contract review and redlining, Transcription, Translation, Agentic workflows |
| [Everlaw](https://ailawframework.com/software/everlaw.md) | See the comparison that lists it | yes | Usage or credits | eDiscovery document review, Chronology building, Document summarisation, Transcription, Translation, Agentic workflows |

## Questions

**Is it allowed to use AI for chronologies in Australia?**

Yes, to extract dates from documents you have, if the court’s rule allows those documents into the tool and a person checks each line.

**What tools are used for chronologies?**

Document-review tools in the catalogue, including Relativity and Everlaw, are used for this. A general chatbot is a poor place for a brief.

**Should disputed facts look the same as agreed facts?**

No. Mark them. An unmarked chronology reads as a list of agreed facts.

## Sources

- [Uniform Law regulators: Statement on AI use](https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/news-updates/news/statement-use-artificial-intelligence-australian-legal-practice)
- [LSNSW: Solicitor's guide to responsible AI use](https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/solicitors-guide-responsible-use-artificial-intelligence)
- [QLS Guidance Statement No 37](https://www.qls.com.au/practising-law-in-qld/ethics/guidance-statements/no-37-artificial-intelligence-in-legal-practice)

## Related

- [Commercial litigation tasks](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md)
- [Discovery and document review](https://ailawframework.com/guides/ai-ediscovery-australia.md)
- [FCFCOA practice direction](https://ailawframework.com/courts/fcfcoa-ai-practice-direction.md)
- [Australian data hosting](https://ailawframework.com/guides/australian-data-hosting-legal-ai.md)