Employment Appeal Tribunal’s Guidance on the Increase of AI in Employment Tribunals

In a recent newsletter, Sarah Bowen of 3PB Barristers details how the increased use of Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) has made its way to Employment Tribunals. Whilst AI can be a useful tool for both legal professionals and unrepresented parties, recent cases have highlighted the risks associated with relying on AI-generated content without proper oversight.

A notable example of this was caught in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) / [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) where the legal team submitted court proceedings that contained five fabricated case citations. This case served as an early indication that AI-generated legal research must be carefully checked before being relied upon in proceedings.

More recently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) considered the use of AI by a litigant in person (‘LiP’) in Hancox v Kenneth Sutherland & Others [2026] EAT 139. In that case, the claimant submitted a 300-page skeleton argument of almost 132,000 words generated using ChatGPT, together with extensive correspondence and numerous applications throughout the proceedings. The material failed to comply with the EAT’s procedural requirements and placed significant burden on both the Tribunal and the respondents.

The EAT made clear that there is nothing inherently wrong with using AI in litigation. It recognised that AI may improve access to justice and assist users in preparing documents. However, it also identified several associated risks, including;

• Excessively long and unfocussed submissions;
• Irrelevant material;
• Procedural non-compliance;
• Factual and legal inaccuracies;
• Fabricated authorities;
• The introduction of new arguments without permission; and
• Misleading content.

The EAT emphasised that these risks apply equally to solicitors, barristers, and LiPs. The EAT rejected the suggestion that LiPs should be held to a lower standard because they are unrepresented.

This does not mean that the challenges faced by unrepresented parties are disregarded. The EAT may make allowances when managing proceedings and adjustments for disability. However, a lack of representation will not generally excuse procedural non-compliance. Accuracy checks should be undertaken as thoroughly as the litigant or representative is reasonably able.

Employers facing an unrepresented claimant can also read our guide to litigants in person in employment tribunals, which explains the practical implications for proceedings.

The judgement reinforced the principle of personal responsibility. Parties using AI must ensure that the documents they submit comply with procedural rules, are thoroughly reviewed for accuracy, focus only on relevant issues, and do not mislead the Tribunal.

The EAT was particularly clear that responsibility for verifying AI-generated content rests with the user, not the opposing party and submitting AI-generated material and expecting the other party to identify errors is not acceptable.

What are the consequences of inappropriate AI use?

Depending on the circumstances, non-compliance may lead to submissions being rejected or shortened, costs sanctions or strike-out. These are potential consequences of the conduct involved; using AI does not itself automatically attract a sanction.

Specific requirements for skeleton arguments in the EAT should be distinguished from the rules governing Employment Tribunal proceedings.

What does this mean for employment solicitors?

Hancox provides guidance on how Tribunals are likely to approach AI-generated material in the future.

1. AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional judgement. Solicitors can use AI to assist with first drafts, research prompts, chronologies and document summaries, but all legal propositions and authorities must be independently verified.
2. Practitioners should be vigilant in checking citations and legal authorities. Every authority should be reviewed against the original source, and AI-generated summaries should be cross-refeed with primary materials.
3. Hancox serves as a reminder that Tribunals prefer concise and focussed submissions. AI has a tendency to generate lengthy and repetitive content, and practitioners should use it to streamline documents rather that to unnecessarily expand them.

with the use of AI continuing to grow in employment litigation, solicitors should be prepared to manage AI-generated material as it becomes increasingly common in Tribunal proceedings.

What does this mean for employers and HR teams?

Employers should ensure that anyone using AI to help prepare tribunal documents checks the output against the underlying employment records, correspondence and evidence.

If you are reviewing workplace records you should consider the risks of AI tools used to take meeting minutes, particularly where those records may later inform tribunal evidence.

A clear internal process should identify who reviews and approves documents before submission. Legal review can help ensure that the response addresses the issues in dispute and meets the relevant procedural requirements.

Can AI be used to prepare witness evidence?

Particular care is needed with witness statements. The EAT highlighted the risk of AI reshaping or embellishing evidence, which may affect the weight placed on it.

Any drafting assistance should preserve the witness’s own recollection and meaning. Witness coaching by AI, as by other means, is not permitted.

Protecting confidential information

As a separate practical precaution, employers should check their organisation’s approved tools and policies before entering information into an AI system. Disciplinary records, medical information and legal advice require particular care.

Consider confidentiality, data protection and any potential effect on legal privilege before uploading material.

The key takeaway from Hancox is that responsibility remains with the person relying on the AI-generated content. AI may assist with drafting, but it does not relieve users from the obligation to ensure accuracy, relevance and procedural compliance.

If your organisation is facing an Employment Tribunal claim or needs advice on preparing evidence and submissions, our Employment Law team can help you assess the issues and prepare your response.

Need advice on an Employment Tribunal claim?

AI can support the preparation of tribunal documents, but careful review and sound legal judgement remain essential. For employers and HR teams, clear processes for checking evidence and approving submissions can help reduce the risks of inaccurate or inappropriate material affecting a case.

Whether you are responding to a new claim or managing ongoing proceedings, our Employment Law team can advise on your position, help prepare evidence and submissions, and represent your organisation.

Contact Our Employment Solicitors