The law library · Ireland · High Court practice direction
Ireland: Practice Direction HC142, generative AI in court documents
Practice Direction on the Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Documents · issued by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville, 29 July 2026 · in operation 1 September 2026
Page verified 13 August 2026 against the full text of HC142 as published by the Courts Service of Ireland on courts.ie. Every date and requirement on this page comes from that text.
From 1 September 2026, a court document in Irish High Court civil proceedings that was prepared with generative AI must be independently verified by a person before it is used, and the direction says in terms that checking it with the same or another AI does not count. Affidavits, witness statements and expert reports carry declarations about GenAI use. The sanctions run from adverse costs to rejection of the document, strike-out, and referral of a practitioner to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority.
Status
- 29 Jul 2026Issued by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville.
- 1 Sep 2026Comes into operation.
Who and what it covers
- DocumentsPleadings, submissions, affidavits, witness statements and expert reports used in civil proceedings.
- GenAIDefined as AI technology or software capable of generating new content, including text, images, audio, video, data or computer code.
- PeopleThe verification duty is written for all persons using GenAI in the preparation of court documents, with specific duties for legal practitioners, witnesses and experts.
What it requires
- VerifyGenAI-generated material must be appropriately and independently verified before use: fact-checked, proofread, edited, and every cited case and provision confirmed to exist and to stand for the legal proposition attributed to it.
- Not by AIThe direction states that it is not sufficient to use the same or other GenAI tools to confirm that information is accurate. The check has to be a person’s.
- DeclareWitness statements and affidavits must declare that generative AI was not used to generate the substantive content of the document.
- ExpertsAn expert report must declare: “I declare that, save as otherwise expressly stated, Generative Artificial Intelligence has not been used for purposes of generating the substantive content of this report”, and where it was used, disclose the nature and extent of that use.
- DiscloseParties must disclose GenAI use when the Court directs it.
- Admin OKAdministrative uses such as formatting and spell-checking do not prevent the declarations being made.
What non-compliance costs
- CostsAdverse cost orders, including personal costs orders against practitioners.
- The filingRejection of the court document.
- The caseStriking out of a claim or defence.
- The licenceReferral of a legal practitioner to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority or their professional body.
Why it is on this list
HC142 is the clearest statement yet from any court in these islands that the check on AI work must be human and must be independent of the AI. It does not ban the tools. It makes the person who signs the document answerable for having verified what the tools produced, and it prices the failure in costs, in the filing itself, and in the practitioner’s standing.
It sits alongside the sanctions practice already documented on the sanctions record: courts have moved from warning about fabricated citations to punishing them, and Ireland has now written the verification duty down in advance.
What the signed record shows
HC142 requires the verification. The record proves it happened.
A declaration says the work was checked. A signed, tamper-evident record shows which AI was used, what a person reviewed, and when, sealed to the exact document that was filed, checkable by the other side or the court without trusting the person who made it. That is the difference between asserting compliance with HC142 and being able to demonstrate it on the day someone asks.
Regulayer for attorneysVerify a record free →
For an individual practitioner, the engine is $349 a month with a free week: start sealing. See also the law library and AI rules by country.
Sources
Related
- The law library · AI rules by country
- Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 902, court self-authentication of electronic records
- Brazil CNJ Resolution 615/2025, judicial AI governance
Checked against the source 13 August 2026: the full text of HC142 on courts.ie. Information, not legal advice.
Information, not legal advice. Every entry is verified against the issuing body’s own document; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.