A judge has criticised a litigant who filed an ‘entirely unacceptable’ skeleton running to 300 pages generated by ChatGPT.

The appellant in Hancox v Sutherland & Ors filed the document containing almost 132,000 words and giving the respondents just one day to identify any inaccuracies or incorrect quotations before the hearing the following day.

Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, deputy judge of the High Court, said the document ‘did not come close’ to complying with relevant practice directions which suggest skeletons in the employment appeal tribunal should be between five and 15 pages. The judge said the AI-generated document ‘served to obscure rather than to illuminate’ and was not relied upon

Having effectively ignored the document and focused a preliminary hearing on a single ground of appeal the EAT allowed the case to proceed to a full hearing.

The appellant’s claim against four individual respondents had been struck out by the employment tribunal on the grounds that proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious manner by conducting a social media campaign on LinkedIn, making a fair trial impossible.

Read more

The judge said at the outset of his ruling that all litigants and their representatives, including litigants without representation, should be mindful of the risks posed by the use of generative AI when creating documents for submission to the EAT.

He was particularly critical of the appellant passing responsibility to the opposing side to check for any issues with the lengthy skeleton document.

‘Simply submitting the product of generative AI to a court or tribunal, or placing the onus to check a document onto an opponent, is not acceptable,’ said the judge. ‘Where concerns arise that necessary checks have not been undertaken, or that they have been conducted inadequately, judicial enquiries and potential sanctions are likely to ensue.’

He added that compliance with the EAT’s procedural requirements was mandatory, not optional. In this case the tribunal was left with an ‘unmanageable document’ which impeded preparation for the preliminary hearing, and in future such a document is likely to be rejected.

No reliance was placed on any matter raised in the skeleton but the judge heard submissions on a single ground raised in the notice of appeal. This ground was that the claim had been struck out without fair notice and without the claimant having a fair opportunity to respond. The judge found there was a reasonable case for bringing the appeal in respect of this one ground, with all other grounds dismissed.

The judge also warned the appellant he could be banned from emailing the EAT after he engaged in ‘excessive correspondence’.