Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
The President of the Court of Appeal issued Practice Direction CA16 requiring independent verification of any generative AI content in court documents from 1 September 2026
The declaration is the sharp end. An affidavit or expert report now carries a signed statement about GenAI use, and the Court has set out exactly what non-compliance leads to.
Bottom line: Binding on practice before the Court of Appeal. Ms Justice Caroline Costello issued it as President under the general authority of the office, the Court's inherent power to regulate its own procedures, and s. 11(12) and (13) of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.
Who this affects: Barristers and solicitors appearing in civil proceedings before the Irish Court of Appeal, deponents swearing affidavits, witnesses making statements, expert witnesses preparing reports, litigants in person, and any third party ordered to produce documents.
Issue date: Issued 11 August 2026. Comes into operation 1 September 2026.
What changed: Affidavits, witness statements and expert reports now carry prescribed GenAI declarations. Verification of any GenAI-assisted material must be independent and under human control. Non-compliance is expressly linked to costs orders, rejection of documents, striking out, and referral of practitioners to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority.
Analysis: Paragraph 3(c) and (d) do the quiet work. The direction applies to all proceedings whether instituted before or after commencement, and to all court documents prepared, produced or generated after the commencement date. An appeal filed in 2024 is inside it for anything drafted from 1 September 2026 onward.
Primary sources: Practice Direction CA16, courts.ie
- Instrument (EN)
- Practice Direction on the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court documents
- Reference
- CA16
- Authority
- Ms Justice Caroline Costello, President of the Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland, Court of Appeal
- Status
- Issued and dated. To be read together with existing Practice Directions.
- Bindingness
- Binding as a practice direction. Non-compliance carries express procedural and professional consequences.
- Issue date / next deadline
- Issued 11 August 2026; in operation from 1 September 2026.
- Alignment
- Aligns with the Practice Direction issued by the President of the High Court on 29 July 2026, so that its provisions continue to apply on appeal from the High Court.
- Primary source
- https://courts.ie/practice-directions/full-practice-direction?url=court-of-appeal-practice-direction-on-the-responsible-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-court-documents
Scope, which is wider than the commencement date suggests
CA16 covers all documents used in civil proceedings, and it lists them: pleadings, submissions, affidavits, witness statements and expert reports, collectively defined as Court Documents. It covers parties, legal practitioners, witnesses, experts and any third party the Court requires to produce documents. Litigants in person are expressly included at paragraph 38.
Then paragraph 3(c) extends it to all proceedings before the Court whether instituted before or after its commencement, and paragraph 3(d) to all Court Documents prepared, produced or generated after the date of commencement. Paragraph 5 flags both, which is a signal that the President expected practitioners to skim past them.
GenAI is defined broadly at paragraph 2: AI technology or software capable of generating new content, including text, images, audio, video, data or computer code, typically in response to user prompts or instructions. Nothing in that definition is limited to chatbots.
The verification standard
Paragraph 12 sets the duty. Any person responsible for a Court Document must ensure that material generated wholly or partly with GenAI assistance has been appropriately and independently verified before it is used, and any limitation on the ability to do that must be disclosed to the Court.
Paragraph 13 closes the obvious loophole. Using the same or another GenAI tool to confirm accuracy is not sufficient. The Court does allow verification by referring to original source material housed within a GenAI tool, which is a meaningful distinction for practitioners using research platforms with linked primary sources.
Paragraph 18 spells out the work: fact-check and proofread; edit and adapt the content to the particular circumstances of the case; and verify that references to case law, legislation, textbooks or articles exist and stand for the propositions attributed to them, with extracts and quotes verified as accurate and correctly attributed. Paragraph 19 adds that exhibits, images and recordings must be authentic, and that fabricated, manipulated or deep fake material must never be presented.
Declarations, and when disclosure is not required
Paragraph 22 is more permissive than practitioners may expect. Subject to the specific requirements below it, any applicable Rule of Court, or an order of the Court, the use of GenAI tools in preparing a Court Document does not of itself require disclosure.
The exceptions are evidence. Under paragraph 27, unless the Court directs otherwise, a person making a witness statement or swearing an affidavit must include in one of the opening paragraphs a declaration that Generative Artificial Intelligence has not been used for the purposes of generating the substantive content, including by way of altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing the evidence set out, and that the document reflects the maker's personal knowledge, recollection and evidence. Paragraph 28 confirms that formatting, spell-checking and similar ancillary uses do not prevent the declaration being made.
Expert reports carry their own declaration at paragraph 29, in similar terms, with a saver for use expressly stated. Where GenAI tools were used, paragraph 30 requires the expert to disclose the nature and extent of that use to the extent necessary for the Court and the parties to assess the reliability, independence and evidential weight of the opinion, and paragraph 31 extends that to any material use in drafting, analysing, interpreting or generating substantive content.
Paragraph 21 keeps a general power in reserve: where directed by the Court, a party or other person must disclose whether GenAI tools were used and the nature and extent of that use, and all persons are expected to be in a position to answer if asked.
What happens when it goes wrong
Paragraph 33 puts a duty on the party who spots a problem in the other side's documents. Raise it with them first, and if there is no appropriate response within a reasonable period, raise it with the Court.
Paragraph 34 puts a heavier duty on the party whose own documents are wrong. Notify the other parties and the Court without delay, explain the issue, substitute clean and marked up versions, and bear the costs of the exercise unless the Court orders otherwise. Note that this applies whether or not the inaccuracy came from GenAI.
Paragraph 35 lists the sanctions for parties: adverse costs orders, orders disregarding or rejecting Court Documents in whole or in part, and striking out a claim or defence where appropriate. Paragraph 36 addresses practitioners, giving citing non-existent sources, inaccurately referencing genuine ones, and failing to promptly remedy an issue as examples, and provides for referral to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 or to a professional body, with personal costs orders available. Paragraph 41 applies the same range to litigants in person whose documents contain inaccurate or non-existent references.
Confidentiality, privilege and restricted documents
The risk list at paragraph 10 goes past hallucination. It records that information entered into a GenAI tool may be retained, processed or disclosed in ways not apparent to the user, and that entering information into a confidential tool may breach obligations if outputs are later used by other persons or for different purposes.
On privilege, paragraph 10(e) is blunt: information entered into GenAI tools or systems, including search results, may be required to be disclosed in legal proceedings, and privileged information entered into non-private tools or systems may lose its privileged status. The Court is stating a risk rather than a holding, but it is stating it in a document practitioners are bound to follow.
Paragraph 32 addresses documents under a court order or an express or implied undertaking restricting use, disclosure or dissemination, including discovery material. GenAI tools should not be employed on such material where doing so would involve, or create a risk of, disclosure or dissemination contrary to that order or undertaking.
What we did not verify
We opened the full text of Practice Direction CA16 on courts.ie and read every numbered paragraph, including the two prescribed declarations, the sanctions paragraphs and the commencement provision.
We did not open the High Court Practice Direction of 29 July 2026 that CA16 says it aligns with, the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, or the Guidance for Non-Lawyers on the Responsible Use of Generative AI in Court Proceedings, which paragraph 39 says will be made available on the Courts Service website shortly and which we could not locate.
We do not claim CA16 applies to criminal proceedings. Paragraph 3(a) refers to civil proceedings and we have not tested the boundary. We also make no claim about how any Irish court has applied the direction, because it had not yet come into operation at the time of writing.
From 1 September 2026, every affidavit, witness statement and expert report going into the Irish Court of Appeal carries a declaration about generative AI, and the direction reaches back into proceedings already on foot for anything drafted after that date. Verification must be independent and cannot be done by another model. The consequence chain the Court set out runs from wasted costs through rejection of documents to referral of practitioners to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, and it applies to litigants in person on the same terms.
Source File
Open CA16 on courts.ie and confirm the issue date of 11 August 2026 and commencement of 1 September 2026, the retrospective reach in paragraph 3(c) and (d), the prohibition on verifying GenAI output with GenAI at paragraph 13, the prescribed declarations at paragraphs 27 and 29, and the sanctions at paragraphs 35 to 37.
It is not sufficient to use the same or other GenAI Tools to confirm that information is accurate. ยท Practice Direction CA16, Ms Justice Caroline Costello, President of the Court of Appeal, 11 August 2026
FAQ
Do I have to disclose that I used GenAI to draft submissions?
Not automatically. Paragraph 22 says the use of GenAI tools in preparing a Court Document does not of itself require disclosure, subject to the specific requirements for affidavits, witness statements and expert reports, any applicable Rule of Court, or an order of the Court. Paragraph 21 lets the Court direct disclosure in any case.
What declaration goes in an affidavit?
Paragraph 27 sets out the wording: a declaration that Generative Artificial Intelligence has not been used for the purposes of generating the substantive content, including by altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing the evidence, and that the document reflects the deponent's personal knowledge, recollection and evidence. It goes in one of the opening paragraphs and may be amended or adapted as appropriate.
Does spell-check count as GenAI use?
Paragraph 28 says the use of GenAI tools for administrative or ancillary purposes unconnected to generating substantive content, such as formatting or spell-checking, does not prevent the declaration at paragraph 27 being made.
Does CA16 apply to an appeal that was already filed?
Paragraph 3(c) applies the direction to all proceedings before the Court whether instituted before or after commencement, and paragraph 3(d) applies it to all Court Documents prepared, produced or generated after the commencement date of 1 September 2026.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.