Australia: AI rules side by side

Paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11 require a disclosure, at the start of the document, where generative AI was used to summarise or analyse information the witness relies on, to create images or other media put before the Court, or in any other way that might affect admissibility. The disclosure should say where and how it was used. If none of those uses occurred, those paragraphs do not require a disclosure.

Paragraph 13 requires the affidavit, witness statement or character reference to contain a disclosure that generative AI was not used to generate its content, including by rephrasing the witness’s evidence. Paragraph 13(b) is a further disclosure for an annexure or exhibit prepared for the evidence, unless leave under paragraph 15 was obtained. Paragraph 14 says that further disclosure is not required where the annexure was not prepared for the proceedings. Paragraph 10 says generative AI must not be used to generate that content.

Paragraphs 16 and 17 apply only where generative AI was used to prepare written submissions or a skeleton. The author must then verify, in the body of the document, that citations, legal and academic authority, case law and legislative references exist, are accurate and are relevant, and must make a similar verification of references to the evidence. That verification must not be carried out only with a generative AI tool. If generative AI was not used, those paragraphs do not call for this statement.

District Court General Practice Note 2 adopts SC Gen 23 in its current form and does not add a separate formula. Paragraph 13 requires the affidavit, witness statement or character reference to contain a disclosure that generative AI was not used to generate its content, including by rephrasing the witness’s evidence. Paragraph 13(b) is a further disclosure for an annexure or exhibit prepared for the evidence, unless leave under paragraph 15 was obtained. Paragraph 14 says that further disclosure is not required where the annexure was not prepared for the proceedings. Paragraph 10 says generative AI must not be used to generate that content.

District Court General Practice Note 2 adopts SC Gen 23 in its current form and does not add a separate formula. Paragraphs 16 and 17 apply only where generative AI was used to prepare written submissions or a skeleton. The author must then verify, in the body of the document, that citations, legal and academic authority, case law and legislative references exist, are accurate and are relevant, and must make a similar verification of references to the evidence. That verification must not be carried out only with a generative AI tool. If generative AI was not used, those paragraphs do not call for this statement.

The Local Court practice note commencing 12 January 2026 adopts SC Gen 23 in its current form and does not add a separate formula. Paragraph 13 requires the affidavit, witness statement or character reference to contain a disclosure that generative AI was not used to generate its content, including by rephrasing the witness’s evidence. Paragraph 13(b) is a further disclosure for an annexure or exhibit prepared for the evidence, unless leave under paragraph 15 was obtained. Paragraph 14 says that further disclosure is not required where the annexure was not prepared for the proceedings. Paragraph 10 says generative AI must not be used to generate that content.

The Local Court practice note commencing 12 January 2026 adopts SC Gen 23 in its current form and does not add a separate formula. Paragraphs 16 and 17 apply only where generative AI was used to prepare written submissions or a skeleton. The author must then verify, in the body of the document, that citations, legal and academic authority, case law and legislative references exist, are accurate and are relevant, and must make a similar verification of references to the evidence. That verification must not be carried out only with a generative AI tool. If generative AI was not used, those paragraphs do not call for this statement.