Ireland: Practice Direction HC142, generative AI in court documents

Status

• 29 Jul 2026Issued by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville.
• 1 Sep 2026In operation. It applies to proceedings begun before or after that date, and to court documents prepared, produced or generated after it.

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.
• AffidavitsThe prescribed declaration for a witness statement or affidavit, in one of the opening paragraphs: “I declare that Generative Artificial Intelligence has not been used for the purposes of generating the substantive content of this [witness statement/affidavit] (including by way or altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing the evidence set out) and that this [witness statement/affidavit] reflects my personal knowledge, recollection and evidence.” The wording is as printed on courts.ie.
• Be readyUsing GenAI in preparing a court document does not of itself require disclosure. But all persons are expected to be in a position to tell the Court, if asked, whether GenAI tools were used and the nature and extent of that use.
• LimitsAny limitation on the ability to verify GenAI material must be disclosed to the Court.
• Protected materialWhere information or documents, including documents obtained on discovery, are subject to a court order or an express or implied undertaking restricting their use, GenAI tools should not be employed on them if that would involve, or create a risk of, disclosure contrary to the order or undertaking.
• PrivilegeParagraph 10 names legal privilege among the known risks: information entered into GenAI tools, including search results, may be required to be disclosed in legal proceedings, and privileged information entered into non-private GenAI tools may lose its privileged status.
• Own errorsA party who identifies, or is told of, an accuracy problem in its own court documents must notify the other parties and the Court without delay, explain it, substitute clean and marked-up versions, and bear the costs of the exercise unless the Court orders otherwise.
• Self-representedThe direction applies to litigants in person, who are pointed to a separate Guidance for Non-Lawyers on the Courts Service website.

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.

Two days after it came into operation, the Supreme Court of India showed the other end of the same line. In Gadiya v. Union of India, decided 2 September 2026, it set aside a customs penalty of Rs 425,27,99,100 because the officer’s order relied on AI-generated authorities, without asking whether they affected the outcome. Ireland states the duty. India states the consequence. Neither says how anyone would know, on the day it matters, that the check took place. That gap is the subject of its own page.

In the United States the same duty already carries a price. In Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, decided 28 July 2026, the Illinois Appellate Court fined an attorney $15,000, $1,500 for each of ten false citations and quotations, and wrote that “the only acceptable standard is zero false citations”. Paying for a premier corporate AI product did not remove his personal verification duty. That is the duty HC142 states, priced.

Sources

• Courts Service of Ireland, Practice Direction HC142, full text
• Courts Service of Ireland, practice directions register

Related

• The law library · AI rules by country
• Verification is becoming a duty. Evidence of verification is the missing layer.
• Gadiya v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India, 2 September 2026 · India
• Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, the Illinois Appellate Court, 28 July 2026, $1,500 per false citation
• Privilege and AI, where paragraphs 10 and 32 now sit
• 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 and 3 September 2026: the full text of HC142 on courts.ie. Information, not legal advice.