Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly common in legal disputes, with people turning to tools such as ChatGPT to help prepare applications, submissions and other legal documents.
The growing use of AI has now prompted the Fair Work Commission to introduce new requirements for people who use generative AI in Commission proceedings.
The change comes after growing concerns about the accuracy and relevance of AI-generated legal material, including a recent case involving an ALDI employee who relied heavily on AI while pursuing an unfair dismissal claim.
The ALDI case
In Sadnan Khan v Aldi Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3144, Mr Khan brought an unfair dismissal application against ALDI after his employment ended in March 2026.
The problem was that he had not yet completed the minimum employment period required to make an unfair dismissal application.
Mr Khan was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, just three days before he would have reached six months of employment.
The Commission raised the issue of his eligibility and explained why his claim could not proceed. However, Mr Khan continued to submit arguments relating to the date his dismissal took effect, rather than the legally relevant date on which he was notified of the dismissal.
Much of this material had been generated with the assistance of AI.
The Commission warned Mr Khan about the problem with his arguments and the potential consequences of continuing with the matter. Despite this, further submissions were made relying on the same reasoning.
Mr Khan eventually accepted the issue at a hearing and discontinued his application.
The Commission then ordered him to pay ALDI $1,230 towards its legal costs. Deputy President Michael Easton described an order of this kind as a very rare step in the Fair Work Commission.
AI use is becoming increasingly common
The ALDI case is not an isolated example of AI appearing in Fair Work matters.
The Fair Work Commission has acknowledged widespread use of AI-generated language in applications being lodged with the Commission. It has also raised concerns that AI can produce legal arguments, references and factual material that are inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or simply irrelevant to the case.
This creates difficulties for everyone involved in a proceeding.
A person may use AI to quickly produce a lengthy and professional-looking submission, but the other party and the Commission may then have to spend additional time determining which parts are accurate and which are not.
The Commission has also warned about AI generating fake cases, legislation and legal arguments. Its existing guidance tells people using AI to carefully check that the cases and legal information they rely upon actually exist and are relevant.
The Fair Work Commission’s new AI guidelines
In response to the increasing use of generative AI, the Fair Work Commission has now introduced a formal guidance note for AI use in its proceedings.
The new guidance was announced on 24 August 2026 and will apply from 20 October 2026.
Under the new requirements, people who use generative AI to prepare documents for a Commission case will have three key responsibilities.
First, they must tell the Commission when and how they used generative AI.
Second, they must check that the document produced is correct and relevant to their case.
Third, if AI has been used to prepare a witness statement or declaration, the person must ensure that it is based on their own knowledge, reflects their own words and is true to the best of their knowledge.
The Commission will also update its application and response forms to help parties comply with these requirements.
Why has the Commission introduced the rules?
The new guidelines reflect a change in how legal cases are being prepared.
Previously, producing a detailed legal submission required significant time and effort. Generative AI can now produce large amounts of legal-looking material almost instantly.
This means that people representing themselves can increasingly use AI to help prepare documents without necessarily having legal training.
The Commission has identified this as a growing issue because AI-generated material can make an argument appear legally convincing even when the underlying reasoning is incorrect or irrelevant.
The problem is therefore not limited to one incorrect sentence or one fabricated case.
A document can look professional, contain extensive legal language and still fail to address the actual legal issue before the Commission.
Responsibility remains with the person using AI
The new guidelines make one thing clear: using AI does not transfer responsibility for a legal document to the technology.
The person submitting the document remains responsible for what they put before the Commission.
This is particularly important for self-represented parties, who may use AI as a substitute for legal assistance when preparing their case.
The Fair Work Commission already allows people to represent themselves in proceedings. Its concern is that AI-generated material must still meet the same basic expectations of accuracy and relevance as any other material submitted to the Commission.
The ALDI case demonstrates what can happen when that responsibility is not taken seriously.
Mr Khan’s use of AI did not prevent him from bringing his claim, but continuing to rely on incorrect and irrelevant arguments ultimately contributed to the Commission ordering him to contribute to ALDI’s legal costs.
For further reading
Check out the ALDI case here.
Check out the Fair Work Commission website here for more.
