01254 828 300 
Employment Judge Annand’s comments, in this case, is one of the first explicit judicial criticism of the use of generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) in Employment Tribunal litigation.
In a judgement refusing an application for reconsideration, the Tribunal observed that the Claimant’s submissions appeared to have been generated using AI because they were lengthy, repetitive and, in places difficult to follow. The Judge commented that although litigants may be tempted to use AI to prepare court documents, Tribunals are more easily assisted by concise submissions written in the party’s own words.
While the Tribunal ultimately refused the reconsideration application as it determined there was no reasonable prospect of the revered remedy judgement being revoked or varied, the judgement’s wider significance lies in its comments on AI assisted drafting. The decision highlights a growing concern that generative AI can produce documents that are long, repetitive and less effective at communicating the key issues in dispute.
The judgement reflects a trend increasingly encountered in workplace disputes. AI generated grievances, appeals and Tribunal submissions are becoming more common, often resulting in lengthy documents containing excessive terminology not relevant to the dispute in question. Employers may therefore need to devote greater time to identify the substantive complaints being raised and distinguishing relevant evidence from AI generated content.
Although the Tribunal did not criticise the use of AI itself, the judgement serves as a reminder that clarity and relevance remain essential. Whether in internal grievance procedures or Employment Tribunal proceedings, decision makers are likely to be assisted more by concise, focused submissions than by extensive AI assisted content that does not capture the key points requiring determination in the dispute.
If you are facing an employment dispute or Employment Tribunal claim, get in touch with Backhouse Jones’ Employment team.