Using AI in PIC proceedings? Disclosure and verification are essential

As the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become more widespread, the legal industry is grappling with what place it has in court proceedings. The Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC13 – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, deals with the use of generative AI in the Personal Injury Commission.

The Rules and Procedural Direction provide, among other things that, if AI has been used in the preparation of written submissions or arguments, the author must verify in the body of the submissions that all citations, legal and academic authority, case law and legislative references, exist, are accurate, and are relevant to the proceedings.

The first PIC decision on AI use

The Commission has recently had its first case dealing with the use of AI in Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites [2026] NSWPICPD 22 (Chesaites).

On 21 February 2025, Sentinel’s workers compensation insurer, Gallagher Bassett (the insurer) received notification of an alleged psychological injury sustained by the worker while she was employed by them on 19 February 2025. 

Liability for the injury was declined on 24 July 2025. After a series of reviews where the declinature was maintained, proceedings were commenced in the Commission.

A representative from Sentinel (the employer) was present and pressed to appear and present the employer’s case separately from that of the insurer.  Relevantly, despite a notice of representation being filed by a legal representative for Sentinel, the Director of Sentinel advised the Commission the employer would be “self-represented” by her.

At a directions hearing on 1 April 2026, the worker and insurer advised they had resolved the dispute. The employer noted they did not agree with the orders. While the employer agreed the worker could discontinue the proceedings, they argued they were entitled to maintain the dispute regarding the claim made by the worker and that the “dispute still needs to be determined” by the Commission.

The employer’s appeal

The Member said that the only order made would be for the matter to be discontinued. This order was made on 13 April 2026.

The employer sought leave to appeal the decision of the Member and sought the Presidential Member do the following:

1. Grant leave to appeal the interlocutory decision.

2. Stay the operation of the orders dated 13 April pending the outcome of this appeal.

3. Set aside the orders and remit the matter back to the Commission for a formal hearing where the Employer may present evidence and submissions.

In responding to the appeal, the insurer said the employer did not have standing to bring the appeal application, because the contract of insurance by which the insurer indemnified the employer and clause 11 of Schedule 3 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 gave it sole legal capacity to defend or to settle workers compensation proceedings.

Undisclosed AI use in the appeal materials

The insurer also submitted the materials put before the Commission had the hallmarks of the use of generative AI which had not been declared and included “an incorrect authority citation and multiple incorrect statutory references”.

In responding to the appeal, the employer conceded that AI had been used in the preparation of the appeal materials, which had not been declared. However, they said this was because they could not afford the cost of continued legal representation. The errors made by the employer in the preparation of the appeal included the incorrect citation for a case authority relied upon and incorrect reliance on section 13 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) which does not apply to contracts for workers compensation (amongst other things).

The Commission’s response

In the decision in Chesaites, the Presential Member said while the Commission was not bound by the Rules of Evidence, the undisclosed use of AI by a party in Commission proceedings, particularly where the material was incorrect and misleading, undermined the fairness of proceedings to any other party and may result in legal error.

While the Presential Member acknowledged the employer was self-represented, they concluded this did not lessen the obligations on them to comply with the legislation and Commission rules. Further, it was noted some of the errors, such as the reliance on irrelevant legislation or an incorrect date in a citation, were more understandable for a lay person. In other words, a person did not have to be a lawyer to avoid these mistakes.

Key takeaway

Ultimately the Presential Member found the employer did not comply with the PIC Rules and while the impact on the proceedings was not significant, it was regrettable and avoidable if due care had been taken. It was concluded -

The Commission’s rules and Procedural Directions apply equally to non-legally represented litigants and those representing them as they do to the legal profession. On this occasion, there is no need for the matter to be taken further. However, this decision should sound a timely warning to anyone appearing before the Commission of the necessity to comply with the rules and Procedural Directions pertaining to AI disclosure.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on other grounds but the matter serves as a timely reminder that while AI can be a useful tool in preparing matters, it must be used carefully and the user needs to carefully check the work produced and ensure they comply with any relevant rules and procedures in the jurisdictions they appear in. 

Authors: Kate Ralph & Jessica Maiuolo

This publication is intended as a source of information only. No reader should act on any matter without first obtaining professional advice.