Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2026, a court guide without the force of law, adds a dedicated section telling lawyers and litigants in person to take reasonable care with AI drafting tools and listing sanctions that may follow
The AI warning itself is not new: the 2025 Guide already told parties not to rely on unchecked AI authorities. In guidance that does not have the force of law, the 2026 edition adds a standalone section that reaches pleadings and witness statements as well as skeletons, and sets out the possible consequences in Part A, chapter 2, rather than only in the skeleton-argument chapter.
Bottom line: This is a court guide, not a Civil Procedure Rule, Practice Direction or statute, and paragraph 1.1.3 says it "does not have the force of law". The judiciary announced on September 29, 2026 that the 2026 edition is "now published and in force" as practice guidance. Its AI section asks for reasonable care and says sanctions may follow; it does not ban AI tools and does not make any sanction automatic.
Who this affects: Public-law solicitors and barristers who draft judicial review pleadings, witness statements and skeleton arguments in the Administrative Court, litigants in person bringing or defending judicial review claims, McKenzie Friends and others assisting them, and government lawyers acting for defendant public authorities.
Issue date: The judiciary.uk announcement is dated September 29, 2026. The PDF cover reads August 2026 and the editors' preface is signed July 2026. We date the change to the September 29 announcement. The Guide sets no transition period that we found.
What changed: In the Guide, which is court guidance without the force of law, section 2.3, "Using Artificial Intelligence tools" (paragraphs 2.3.1 to 2.3.3), is new in the 2026 edition; the 2025 table of contents runs from 2.2 Sanctions straight to chapter 3. Paragraph 20.2.5 on AI-generated authorities was already in the 2025 Guide and carries over almost word for word.
Analysis: On our reading, the practical shift in this non-binding guidance is scope. The 2025 warning sat in the skeleton argument chapter and was about authorities. Section 2.3 names pleadings, witness statements and skeleton arguments, extends reasonable care to factual matters, and adds a reminder that AI users stay subject to page limits.
Primary sources: The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2026 (PDF, judiciary.uk) · Courts and Tribunals Judiciary announcement, September 29, 2026
- Instrument (EN)
- The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2026, section 2.3 (Using Artificial Intelligence tools) and paragraph 20.2.5
- Authority
- Prepared under the direction of the Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain; edited by Mr Justice Sheldon and Mr Justice Coppel
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales: the Administrative Court of the High Court, wherever it sits, and the Administrative Court Offices
- Status
- Published and in force as of the September 29, 2026 judiciary.uk announcement; replaces the 2025 edition
- Bindingness
- Court guide. Paragraph 1.1.3: it "does not have the force of law". Not a CPR rule, Practice Direction or statute. The sanctions it lists come from the court's existing powers
- Issue date / next deadline
- Announced September 29, 2026. PDF cover dated August 2026; preface signed July 2026. No compliance deadline or transition period found
- Location in the Guide
- Section 2.3 at pages 12 to 13 (Part A, chapter 2, Procedural Rigour); paragraph 20.2.5 at page 157 (chapter 20, Skeleton arguments)
- Cited in the Guide
- Footnote 18: AI Guidance for Judicial Office Holders, 31 October 2025. Footnote 19 and footnote 482: R (Ayinde) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)
- Primary source
- https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/46.77_JO_AdminCourtGuide2026_Final_WEB.pdf
What does section 2.3 of the 2026 Guide say?
In short: be careful with AI drafting tools, check citations, propositions and facts, and expect possible consequences if you do not. All of it is guidance from a document that says it does not have the force of law.
Paragraph 2.3.1 opens: "Legal representatives and litigants in person (or those assisting them) should take reasonable care when using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools for the drafting of documents in judicial review proceedings (pleadings, witness statements and skeleton arguments)." It then says, in the Guide's words, "Reasonable care must be taken, in particular, as to the accuracy of any citations to legal authorities and of any statement of legal propositions or principles to be derived from those authorities, as well as to factual matters."
The paragraph closes with a line aimed at anyone tempted to trust the output: "Those using AI tools are reminded that AI chatbots may well be prone to error." Footnote 18 points readers to the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders of 31 October 2025.
Paragraph 2.3.3 adds something the 2025 Guide did not say about AI. Persons using AI tools "are reminded that they are subject to the requirement to comply with relevant page limits for documents produced for the Court and should not include irrelevant materials." On our reading, that is aimed at volume as much as accuracy. The Guide does not explain the reason, and we do not supply one.
Which sanctions does the Guide list, and are they automatic?
No. Paragraph 2.3.2 says failure to take reasonable care "may result in" consequences. It is a list of what the court could do, set out in a guide without the force of law, and it does not say any of them follows as of course.
The list, in order, is costs sanctions, the striking out of a case, referral to a professional regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and referral to the police. Footnote 19 cites R (Ayinde) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin). The printed paragraph refers to "Article Intelligence tools", which we take to be a typographical slip for Artificial Intelligence; we reproduce it as printed, marked [sic], in the quotation on this page.
None of these powers is created by the Guide. Section 2.2, on sanctions generally, describes the court's existing range, including adverse costs orders, wasted costs orders against a legal representative, and referral to a regulator under the Hamid jurisdiction in chapter 18.
Did the Guide warn about AI before 2026?
Yes. The 2025 edition already contained paragraph 20.2.5, in the chapter on skeleton arguments. In our text of the 2025 PDF, that paragraph is the only mention of artificial intelligence.
The 2026 version of 20.2.5, still guidance, reads: "Reliance should not be placed on auto-generated authorities using artificial intelligence tools, or on the fruits of a client's research, without checking the source directly." It goes on to say that citing a false authority may lead to public admonition of the responsible lawyer, a costs order, a wasted costs order, striking out a claim, referral to a regulator, contempt proceedings and referral to the police, again citing Ayinde. Comparing the two texts, the one wording change we found in this paragraph is "striking out a case" in 2025 becoming "striking out a claim" in 2026.
So the claim we can support is narrow. The dedicated section is new in 2026. The warning against unchecked AI authorities, and the list of possible consequences for false citations, were already there in 2025.
How much weight does a court guide carry?
The Guide is not law, and it says so itself. Paragraph 1.1.3 says the Guide "does not have the force of law", and in the same paragraph quotes the court describing it as "essential reading for all those who practice in the Administrative Court". It adds that parties should draw the court's attention to a particular rule or case and not merely rely on the Guide.
The preface puts the expectation plainly: "All Court users are expected to follow this Guide when they prepare and present their cases." It also says parties and their legal representatives may be subject to sanctions if they fail to comply. Read together, on our interpretation, the Guide is the court telling users how it expects them to behave, backed by powers the court already holds. It is not a new source of obligation in itself.
Scope matters too. Paragraph 1.1.3 says the Guide applies to cases heard in the Administrative Court wherever it is sitting and in the Administrative Court Offices across England and Wales. We do not extend section 2.3 to other courts or tribunals; other courts have their own guides.
What would careful practice look like under section 2.3?
The Guide does not prescribe a method, and it does not ban AI tools. What follows is our reading of what its words point to, not an obligation it states.
For anyone drafting with AI assistance, 2.3.1 names three things to check: citations to authorities, the legal propositions said to come from them, and factual matters. Paragraph 20.2.5 adds the operational step, checking the source directly rather than relying on auto-generated authorities. For a litigant in person, 2.3.1 applies equally to "those assisting them".
A firm that already verifies every authority against the report itself would, on our reading, find little new in the citation limb. The parts more likely to change working habits are the extension to witness statements and facts, and the page-limit reminder in 2.3.3.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the full text of the 2026 Guide PDF as published on judiciary.uk (cover dated August 2026), including the foreword, preface, paragraphs 1.1.1 to 1.1.5, sections 2.2 and 2.3, and paragraph 20.2.5 with footnotes 18, 19 and 482; the judiciary.uk announcement page dated September 29, 2026; and the text of the 2025 Guide (cover dated August 2025), whose table of contents and paragraph 20.2.5 we compared against 2026.
What we did not open: the judgment in R (Ayinde) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the AI Guidance for Judicial Office Holders of 31 October 2025, the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions the Guide refers to, and any statement by the editors explaining why section 2.3 was added. We did not compare the two editions line by line outside the passages named here.
What we refuse to claim: we do not call the Guide a rule, Practice Direction or statute; we do not say it bans or restricts AI tools; we do not say any sanction follows automatically, because the Guide says "may"; we do not present the 2026 edition as the court's earliest AI warning, because the 2025 Guide already had one; we do not say why the page-limit reminder was added; and we do not apply section 2.3 beyond judicial review in the Administrative Court. The "Article Intelligence" wording in 2.3.2 is reproduced as printed; we do not know whether a corrected version will issue.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
The 2026 Judicial Review Guide does not have the force of law, but it tells Administrative Court users, represented or not, that AI-assisted pleadings, witness statements and skeletons call for reasonable care on citations, propositions and facts. Check every authority against the source itself, and keep AI-drafted documents inside page limits.
Source File
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/46.77_JO_AdminCourtGuide2026_Final_WEB.pdf
Open the 2026 Guide PDF and confirm four things: section 2.3 at pages 12 to 13 with footnotes 18 and 19, paragraph 20.2.5 at page 157, the statement in paragraph 1.1.3 that the Guide does not have the force of law, and the September 29, 2026 date on the judiciary.uk announcement. Then open the 2025 Guide and check that its contents list has no section 2.3.
Failure to take reasonable care with the use of Article Intelligence [sic] tools may result in costs sanctions, the striking out of a case, the referral to a professional regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, or referral to the police. ยท The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2026, para 2.3.2, announced September 29, 2026
FAQ
Does the 2026 Judicial Review Guide ban AI tools?
No. Section 2.3 says legal representatives and litigants in person should take reasonable care when using AI tools to draft pleadings, witness statements and skeleton arguments. It does not prohibit any tool, and the Guide itself does not have the force of law.
Is the Guide a Civil Procedure Rule or Practice Direction?
No. It is a court guide prepared under the direction of the Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court. Paragraph 1.1.3 says it does not have the force of law, while describing it as essential reading for those who practise in the Administrative Court.
What sanctions does it mention for careless AI use?
Paragraph 2.3.2 says failure to take reasonable care may result in costs sanctions, the striking out of a case, referral to a professional regulator, contempt proceedings, or referral to the police. These are possible outcomes drawn from the court's existing powers, not automatic penalties.
When did the 2026 Guide take effect?
The judiciary.uk announcement dated September 29, 2026 says the 2026 edition is now published and in force. The PDF cover reads August 2026 and the preface is signed July 2026; we use the September 29 announcement as the operative date.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.