Guidelines for generative AI in South Australian courts, applying from 1 January 2026 across the courts named by the Courts Administration Authority. Recorded 10 Oct 2026: Artificial Intelligence Hub.
The Courts Administration Authority says its generative AI guidelines apply from 1 January 2026 to proceedings in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns. The rules were expected to pick the guidelines up. Read the PDF on that page. Do not apply a New South Wales or Victorian note in its place.
South Australian Courts — These guidelines apply to and in respect of steps taken in proceedings in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns governed by the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (UCRs), Uniform Special Statutory Rules 2022 (SA) (USSRs) and the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) (JCRs) on and from 1 January 2026. The publishing page, as read on 10 October 2026, still says it was anticipated that those Rules would be amended in early 2026 to ‘pick up’ the guidelines. The consolidated Uniform Civil Rules 2020 current to 15 March 2026 do not mention generative AI, so the guidelines are not treated here as part of the Rules.
Supreme Court of South Australia — Announcement dated 19 January 2026. After a survey launched by the Chief Justice in May 2025, the Judges of the Supreme Court approved guidelines for Gen AI. The page says the guidelines have been adopted from 1 January 2026 and will shortly be given force under rules that apply to practitioners and litigants. It lists the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns. It says the guidelines give examples of ethical and responsible use and of improper use, and that further guidance was prepared for self-represented litigants. The examples themselves are in the guidelines, not in this announcement.
SAET is not one of the six courts in the Courts Administration Authority’s 1 January 2026 announcement. It has published its own statement that it adopts the Supreme Court guidelines. Open that statement before you assume either that the guidelines apply unchanged or that they do not apply at all.
South Australian Employment Tribunal — Information sheet for self-represented litigants, published by SAET alongside the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines, on restrictions on uploading litigation documents and verifying AI-supplied sources.
South Australian Employment Tribunal — SAET notice by Justice Steven Dolphin, dated 17 October 2025, reminding practitioners of duties not to mislead and warning of Gen AI "hallucinations", following a referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner over fictitious citations.
SA Employment Tribunal — SAET adopts the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines (in force 1 Jan 2026 across Supreme, District, Magistrates, Youth, ERD Courts) and issues an information sheet for self-represented litigants; Oct 2025 referral to LPCC for fake-case citation.
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal — No SACAT-specific AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Who we are and Preparing for a hearing checked; site search returned nothing on AI; legislation/practice-directions URL returned 404). Note: SA courts' Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SA — No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner (SA) — No new LPCC practitioner AI guidance found beyond the existing complainant AI fact sheet as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and making-a-complaint page checked).
Law Society of South Australia — Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence Hub - The Law Society of South Australia”. The Artificial Intelligence Hub brings together practical resources, guidance and key information to assist legal practitioners in understanding and managing the use of AI and generative AI in legal practice. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of South Australia — Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence, Real Problems: Evidence in the Age of AI”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of South Australia — Law Society of South Australia publishes “Supreme Court issues Artificial Intelligence Guidelines”. The guidelines for the use of Generative AI may be adopted by Tribunals or other South Australia Courts, and we await advice from those Tribunals and Courts as to their position in relation to the use of AI. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
South Australian Bar Association — No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence
Legal Services Commission of SA — Legal Services Commission of SA publishes “amica - Legal Services Commission of South Australia”. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), amicaone allows users to see how amica works without involving their former partner – by providing an estimate of a suggested division of money and property, reflected as a percentage split. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Department of the Premier and Cabinet (South Australia) — No privacy statute; Information Privacy Principles Instruction (Premier and Cabinet Circular PC012) binds agencies. FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA). SA agencies follow the IPPs Instruction and the SA Privacy Committee. Private firms fall under the Cth Act. No SA-specific AI privacy guidance found. Checked 2026-10-10.
No new AI guidance found: South Australian Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence
South Australian Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SANoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SA
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence.
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence Hub - The Law Society of South Australia”. The Artificial Intelligence Hub brings together practical resources, guidance and key information to assist legal practitioners in understanding and managing the use of AI and generative AI in legal practice. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The Artificial Intelligence Hub brings together practical resources, guidance and key information to assist legal practitioners in understanding and managing the use of AI and generative AI in legal practice.
See the AI Hub for more information including guidance, tools, resources and answers to frequently asked questions.
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence, Real Problems: Evidence in the Age of AI”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Supreme Court issues Artificial Intelligence Guidelines”. The guidelines for the use of Generative AI may be adopted by Tribunals or other South Australia Courts, and we await advice from those Tribunals and Courts as to their position in relation to the use of AI. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The guidelines for the use of Generative AI may be adopted by Tribunals or other South Australia Courts, and we await advice from those Tribunals and Courts as to their position in relation to the use of AI.
Legal Services Commission of SA publishes “amica - Legal Services Commission of South Australia”. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), amicaone allows users to see how amica works without involving their former partner – by providing an estimate of a suggested division of money and property, reflected as a percentage split. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), amicaone allows users to see how amica works without involving their former partner – by providing an estimate of a suggested division of money and property, reflected as a percentage split.
amicaone’s inbuilt AI considers all the factors of a relationship when giving an estimate of what is a fair split – including the length of the relationship, age and health care needs, contributions to the relationship, and earnings.
Information sheet for self-represented litigants, published by SAET alongside the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines, on restrictions on uploading litigation documents and verifying AI-supplied sources.
Uploading documents received in litigation into open Gen AI may breach the Harman obligation and be contempt of court
Do not upload suppressed, confidential, privileged or settlement documents unless satisfied the system is closed
Explains "open" vs "closed" AI systems (e.g. free ChatGPT is open)
Take reasonable steps to verify that legal sources or references from Gen AI are relevant and accurate
SAET notice by Justice Steven Dolphin, dated 17 October 2025, reminding practitioners of duties not to mislead and warning of Gen AI "hallucinations", following a referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner over fictitious citations.
Legal practitioners must not knowingly or recklessly mislead a court or tribunal and must correct misleading statements
Citing a fictitious authority is treated seriously and was referred to the LPCC
Reminds litigants of the dangers of Gen AI hallucinations, whether open-source or closed models
SAET adopts the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines (in force 1 Jan 2026 across Supreme, District, Magistrates, Youth, ERD Courts) and issues an information sheet for self-represented litigants; Oct 2025 referral to LPCC for fake-case citation.
These guidelines apply to and in respect of steps taken in proceedings in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns governed by the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (UCRs), Uniform Special Statutory Rules 2022 (SA) (USSRs) and the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) (JCRs) on and from 1 January 2026. The publishing page, as read on 10 October 2026, still says it was anticipated that those Rules would be amended in early 2026 to ‘pick up’ the guidelines. The consolidated Uniform Civil Rules 2020 current to 15 March 2026 do not mention generative AI, so the guidelines are not treated here as part of the Rules.
These guidelines may also be adopted, with such modifications as considered appropriate, by Tribunals or other Courts of this State.
Fundamentally, lawyers and litigants must continue to take personal responsibility for their work and their conduct.
Gen AI may support, but must not replace, the professional skills and judgment expected of lawyers conducting litigation.
The results of a task given to Gen AI cannot simply be adopted. A lawyer or litigant must take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that it is appropriate to use those results, and by doing so takes responsibility for them.
The party filing a legal document need not disclose that they have used Gen AI by making any particular statement in the document, however, they should be in a position to inform a judicial officer, if questioned, about the use of Gen AI.
A lawyer carries a heavy onus of ensuring that the statement or affidavit ultimately produced fairly and fully reflects the witness’ authentic memory and, to the extent possible whilst ensuring that it is admissible, is expressed in the language they use.
It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use Gen AI to alter, enhance or modify photographic or video evidence.
An opinion expressed by an expert that is based on Gen AI is likely to be inadmissible because it will not in fact have resulted from the application of the expert’s own specialised knowledge to particular assumed facts.
An expert should not use Gen AI unless: (a) the way in which it has been deployed is reasonably apparent from the report; (b) the expert (or the party retaining the expert) is in a position to establish the reliability of the work undertaken by Gen AI.
In the case of character references, since these are likely to be brief, and there are few efficiency gains to be achieved by Gen AI, it would rarely, if ever, be appropriate for Gen AI to be used by the author, much less a lawyer, in generating a draft of its content.
The Courts Administration Authority page is dated 19 January 2026. · Effective 2026-01-19
Announcement dated 19 January 2026. After a survey launched by the Chief Justice in May 2025, the Judges of the Supreme Court approved guidelines for Gen AI. The page says the guidelines have been adopted from 1 January 2026 and will shortly be given force under rules that apply to practitioners and litigants. It lists the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns. It says the guidelines give examples of ethical and responsible use and of improper use, and that further guidance was prepared for self-represented litigants. The examples themselves are in the guidelines, not in this announcement.
Dated 19 January 2026.
Says the guidelines were adopted from 1 January 2026.
Says they will shortly be given force under the rules. It does not say that has already happened.
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: South Australian Civil and Administrative TribunalNo guidance foundTribunalPrimary sourceNo SACAT-specific AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Who we are and Preparing for a hearing checked; site search returned nothing on AI; legislation/practice-directions URL returned 404). Note: SA courts' Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Not stated
No SACAT-specific AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Who we are and Preparing for a hearing checked; site search returned nothing on AI; legislation/practice-directions URL returned 404). Note: SA courts' Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
No new LPCC practitioner AI guidance found beyond the existing complainant AI fact sheet as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and making-a-complaint page checked).
This is the catalogue for South Australia. An instrument appears under “Rules that apply” only when you name the court or tribunal, or say that no court is involved.
AI instruments for South Australia
Instrument
Issuer
Date on page
What it says
Source
Artificial Intelligence HubLaw society resourcePrimary sourceProfessional guidance. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Law Society of South Australia
live resource
Resources, guidance, an implementation tool and templates for SA practitioners on AI and generative AI use.
Information sheet for self-represented litigants, published by SAET alongside the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines, on restrictions on uploading litigation documents and verifying AI-supplied sources.
Uploading documents received in litigation into open Gen AI may breach the Harman obligation and be contempt of court
Do not upload suppressed, confidential, privileged or settlement documents unless satisfied the system is closed
Explains "open" vs "closed" AI systems (e.g. free ChatGPT is open)
Take reasonable steps to verify that legal sources or references from Gen AI are relevant and accurate
SAET notice by Justice Steven Dolphin, dated 17 October 2025, reminding practitioners of duties not to mislead and warning of Gen AI "hallucinations", following a referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner over fictitious citations.
Legal practitioners must not knowingly or recklessly mislead a court or tribunal and must correct misleading statements
Citing a fictitious authority is treated seriously and was referred to the LPCC
Reminds litigants of the dangers of Gen AI hallucinations, whether open-source or closed models
SAET adopts the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines (in force 1 Jan 2026 across Supreme, District, Magistrates, Youth, ERD Courts) and issues an information sheet for self-represented litigants; Oct 2025 referral to LPCC for fake-case citation.
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence Hub - The Law Society of South Australia”. The Artificial Intelligence Hub brings together practical resources, guidance and key information to assist legal practitioners in understanding and managing the use of AI and generative AI in legal practice. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The Artificial Intelligence Hub brings together practical resources, guidance and key information to assist legal practitioners in understanding and managing the use of AI and generative AI in legal practice.
See the AI Hub for more information including guidance, tools, resources and answers to frequently asked questions.
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence, Real Problems: Evidence in the Age of AI”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Supreme Court issues Artificial Intelligence Guidelines”. The guidelines for the use of Generative AI may be adopted by Tribunals or other South Australia Courts, and we await advice from those Tribunals and Courts as to their position in relation to the use of AI. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The guidelines for the use of Generative AI may be adopted by Tribunals or other South Australia Courts, and we await advice from those Tribunals and Courts as to their position in relation to the use of AI.
Legal Services Commission of SA publishes “amica - Legal Services Commission of South Australia”. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), amicaone allows users to see how amica works without involving their former partner – by providing an estimate of a suggested division of money and property, reflected as a percentage split. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), amicaone allows users to see how amica works without involving their former partner – by providing an estimate of a suggested division of money and property, reflected as a percentage split.
amicaone’s inbuilt AI considers all the factors of a relationship when giving an estimate of what is a fair split – including the length of the relationship, age and health care needs, contributions to the relationship, and earnings.
These guidelines apply to and in respect of steps taken in proceedings in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns governed by the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (UCRs), Uniform Special Statutory Rules 2022 (SA) (USSRs) and the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) (JCRs) on and from 1 January 2026. The publishing page, as read on 10 October 2026, still says it was anticipated that those Rules would be amended in early 2026 to ‘pick up’ the guidelines. The consolidated Uniform Civil Rules 2020 current to 15 March 2026 do not mention generative AI, so the guidelines are not treated here as part of the Rules.
These guidelines may also be adopted, with such modifications as considered appropriate, by Tribunals or other Courts of this State.
Fundamentally, lawyers and litigants must continue to take personal responsibility for their work and their conduct.
Gen AI may support, but must not replace, the professional skills and judgment expected of lawyers conducting litigation.
The results of a task given to Gen AI cannot simply be adopted. A lawyer or litigant must take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that it is appropriate to use those results, and by doing so takes responsibility for them.
The party filing a legal document need not disclose that they have used Gen AI by making any particular statement in the document, however, they should be in a position to inform a judicial officer, if questioned, about the use of Gen AI.
A lawyer carries a heavy onus of ensuring that the statement or affidavit ultimately produced fairly and fully reflects the witness’ authentic memory and, to the extent possible whilst ensuring that it is admissible, is expressed in the language they use.
It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use Gen AI to alter, enhance or modify photographic or video evidence.
An opinion expressed by an expert that is based on Gen AI is likely to be inadmissible because it will not in fact have resulted from the application of the expert’s own specialised knowledge to particular assumed facts.
An expert should not use Gen AI unless: (a) the way in which it has been deployed is reasonably apparent from the report; (b) the expert (or the party retaining the expert) is in a position to establish the reliability of the work undertaken by Gen AI.
In the case of character references, since these are likely to be brief, and there are few efficiency gains to be achieved by Gen AI, it would rarely, if ever, be appropriate for Gen AI to be used by the author, much less a lawyer, in generating a draft of its content.
The Courts Administration Authority page is dated 19 January 2026. · Effective 2026-01-19
Announcement dated 19 January 2026. After a survey launched by the Chief Justice in May 2025, the Judges of the Supreme Court approved guidelines for Gen AI. The page says the guidelines have been adopted from 1 January 2026 and will shortly be given force under rules that apply to practitioners and litigants. It lists the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns. It says the guidelines give examples of ethical and responsible use and of improper use, and that further guidance was prepared for self-represented litigants. The examples themselves are in the guidelines, not in this announcement.
Dated 19 January 2026.
Says the guidelines were adopted from 1 January 2026.
Says they will shortly be given force under the rules. It does not say that has already happened.
No new AI guidance found: South Australian Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence
South Australian Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SANoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SA
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence.
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: South Australian Civil and Administrative TribunalNo guidance foundTribunalPrimary sourceNo SACAT-specific AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Who we are and Preparing for a hearing checked; site search returned nothing on AI; legislation/practice-directions URL returned 404). Note: SA courts' Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Not stated
No SACAT-specific AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Who we are and Preparing for a hearing checked; site search returned nothing on AI; legislation/practice-directions URL returned 404). Note: SA courts' Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
No new LPCC practitioner AI guidance found beyond the existing complainant AI fact sheet as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and making-a-complaint page checked).
The privacy and freedom-of-information regime for South Australia, and what the 10 October 2026 check recorded about AI. Confirm the statute, and any commencement proclamation, before reliance.
Department of the Premier and Cabinet (South Australia)
No privacy statute; Information Privacy Principles Instruction (Premier and Cabinet Circular PC012) binds agencies. FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA). SA agencies follow the IPPs Instruction and the SA Privacy Committee. Private firms fall under the Cth Act. No SA-specific AI privacy guidance found. Checked 2026-10-10.
No privacy statute; Information Privacy Principles Instruction (Premier and Cabinet Circular PC012) binds agencies
FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA)
SA DPC: Information privacy — https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/responsibilities/protective-security-framework/information-management/privacy
Ombudsman SA (FOI) — https://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/
Statute names from official sources; how they apply to AI is a summary to verify.
The 1 January 2026 date covers more than the Supreme Court. Check that your court is in the list, then read the guideline rather than a news summary.
The operative text is the PDF
The public page is an announcement and a download. The obligations are in the guideline. This checklist tells you to open it. It does not pretend to restate clauses that live only in that PDF.
Professional duties still apply
Whatever the guideline adds, a South Australian practising certificate still carries competence, confidentiality and the duty to the court.
Jurisdiction
The announcement names six South Australian courts. If your matter is in SACAT or another body not on that list, look for that body’s own direction.
What to open first
Download the South Australian guideline and match it to the court named in your matter before you set a checking standard from interstate.
Review checklist
Confirm the proceeding is in one of the courts named in the 1 January 2026 announcement.
Download the current guideline from the Courts Administration Authority and read it against the document you are preparing.
Verify citations in a trusted source. Do not treat another state’s practice note as the South Australian rule.
Keep confidential and suppressed material out of public tools unless the guideline you have read allows that environment.
Keep witness evidence in the witness’s own words while you confirm what the guideline says about affidavits and experts.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The announcement is not a substitute for the PDF.
A self-represented information sheet is written for a different reader.
Do not assume SACAT is covered because the ERD Court is named. Read the list.
Further check from the 22 September research
The South Australian guidelines, which apply from 1 January 2026, do not ban generative AI in witness statements. They say a lawyer must still make sure the statement fairly and fully reflects the witness’s own memory and language. A draft from an accurate interview transcript can be appropriate with the witness’s consent. It is a poor fit where the evidence is short, the case is criminal, the witness may not carefully check a draft, or the words of a conversation matter. The draft should not be shown to the witness before the lawyer has tested the witness’s memory against it, and it must not be built from another witness’s evidence or instructed to prove a desired proposition.
Guidance
The guidelines treat documents obtained by compulsion as subject to the implied obligation not to use them for another purpose. Suppression orders, privileged material, settlement negotiations and other confidential documents raise the same risk. Unless the lawyer is satisfied the system is closed, uploading those documents for analysis should be treated as a breach, and possibly a contempt. The guidelines also say a “closed” label can be too simple: ask whether information is used to retrain the model and whether it is kept after the agreement ends.
Limits on AI assistance
Do not file, send or rely on generated text until the responsible lawyer has checked it against the instructions and the current source.
Do not put suppressed, privileged, subpoenaed or safety-sensitive information into a public AI tool.
Confirm coverage and the service window Read both limbs of section 11 Approve the claim that is served Do not rely on the checking list to supply the missing due-date limb
