On 26 March 2026, the Court of Appeal issued guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the Irish courts for the first time. In Guerin v O’Doherty [2005] IECA 48, the President of the Court of Appeal outlined five guiding principles for parties intending to use AI while preparing for their case.

Background

The matter concerned an appeal by the defendant against the dismissal of her application to strike out a defamation claim. The defendant was a litigant in person (meaning she was not represented by lawyers) while the plaintiff was represented by lawyers. The defendant used AI to draft her legal submissions, setting out to the Court what she argued was the correct legal analysis on the issues before the Court for determination.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. In rejecting the grounds of appeal, the Court noted that some of the defendant’s submissions were not relevant and contained references to authorities that did not exist. These false authorities were AI “hallucinations” which the defendant failed to verify. The defendant also failed to inform the plaintiff or the Court that she had used AI in preparation of her case.

The Court did not criticise the defendant for using AI in this instance, particularly in circumstances where no guidance was available when she filed her written submissions.  

Principles

The Court outlined five general principles on the use of AI in Irish litigation:

1. Parties can use AI to assist in carrying out research for their case, provided they do so responsibly and do not, even inadvertently, mislead the Court
2. Parties must expressly inform the other side and the Court if they have used AI
3. A self-represented party is responsible for the ultimate written or oral work in their case, to the same extent as the lawyers representing parties are so responsible
4. Any party using AI must independently verify the accuracy of their submissions and the authorities cited
5. A party must not cite any authority unless they have verified that it is a genuine judgment of the court and that it supports the proposition for which it is cited.

Variety of Sanctions

The Court noted that improper use of AI can result in wasted time and costs and can place an unfair burden on the other side in preparing their response. The Court further noted that it has the potential to  bring the administration of justice into disrepute and may result in misleading the Court. It noted that a “variety of sanctions” are available to the Court should a party mislead it through the improper use of AI.

Conclusion

Going forward, all parties, lawyers and litigants included, must ensure they are complying with the guidance issued by the Court and must verify the integrity of their submissions and notify relevant parties to ensure transparent use of AI. The guidance is a timely reminder of the importance of maintaining human oversight when using AI in the context of litigation in Ireland.

For more information on how Hayes may be able to assist in relation to the deployment of AI, whether in the context of dispute resolution or elsewhere, please contact Matthew Austin, Cian Clinch or Denise O’Shaughnessy.