---
title: "Verify a Western Australian Supreme Court document before it is signed"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/check-a-court-document-against-the-ai-practice-note-before-filing/western-australia"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A5-V20260923-3-WA"
practice_area: "Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["WA"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Verify a Western Australian Supreme Court document before it is signed

> Extract propositions, citations and omissions to check from a draft court document.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/check-a-court-document-against-the-ai-practice-note-before-filing/western-australia  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Extract propositions, citations and omissions to check from a draft court document. |
| What the lawyer must review | Read for missing issues as well as false citations Remember the guidelines put omissions on the person who files |
| Written for | Western Australia |
| Applies to | [Check a court document against the AI practice note before filing](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/check-a-court-document-against-the-ai-practice-note-before-filing.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The extract is a checking aid. The practitioner who signs is responsible for accuracy and for what was left out.

- What the AI does: Extract propositions, citations and omissions to check from a draft court document.
- What the lawyer does: Verify the content and the gaps, then sign only if the guidelines are met.
- Who reviews: Lawyer competent in the matter and the forum
- Basis: Planning guidance checked against the linked public sources on 22 September 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.
- Why: The traffic light follows the consequence of an error and how much of the output the lawyer must check before it is used.
- Restriction: The lawyer leads the substantive decision. Any assistance stays inside the preparation described for this task.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open the Supreme Court guidelines.
2. Verify citations and facts in a trusted source.
3. Look for missing issues, not only invented ones.
4. Decide whether use must be disclosed so that the Court is not misled.

## Notes

- Suggested working checks from the linked public sources. Read the source and confirm it applies to this forum and this date. The checks do not approve software or record that the work is done.

## Practical guide

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Western Australia

**Deliverable**: A checked draft and a short note of what was verified.

**Inputs**

- The draft
- The WA guidelines
- The authorities and the facts

**Example**: A submission that never mentions a limitation defence the tool “forgot” is still the practitioner’s document.

**Stop and escalate when**

- The matter is not in the Supreme Court and no equivalent guideline has been found.
- Confidential facts have already gone into a public tool.

Checked 2026-09-22.

## Sources

- [Supreme Court of Western Australia: Guidelines for the use of generative AI](https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf) (checked 2026-09-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*