An employment judge has pointed out that documents apparently created by artificial intelligence would have been easier to understand had the litigant in person written ‘using their own words’.

Employment judge Annand refused an application in a claim against the secretary of state for justice finding there was ‘no reasonable prospect of the judgment being revoked or varied’.

The claimant, referred to as CX in the judgment, was awarded £53,782.86 in compensation after an early tribunal upheld six complaints of direct sex discrimination, seven complaints of harassment related to sex, four complaints of direct discrimination related to vegan beliefs and four complaints of harassment.

CX made an application on reconsideration of the remedy judgment, sending the tribunal four different documents including grounds for reconsideration, a skeleton argument and an ‘overview’ document totalling 47 pages.

Read more

The judge said the documents appeared to have been composed by AI. The documents 'are long, use language that is difficult to understand in places, and are highly repetitive', she said. ‘While it can be tempting for parties to use AI when submitting documents to tribunals, it is easier for the tribunal to understand the points that the parties want to make if they write them out themselves, in a single document, using their own words.’

Both master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos and the lady chief justice have praised AI for helping litigants in person formulate their claims. Vos, in a keynote address at the Expert Witness Institute’s annual conference said AI-generated submission by litigants in person are ‘often, if not always, more concise [and] make more sense’.

Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill told the Lords constitution committee during her annual evidence session last month that AI ‘can really help litigants in person have access to justice because they can get support in drafting their submissions’.