Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have made legal information more accessible than ever. In a matter of seconds, an employee can ask an AI tool to draft a claim, identify potential breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), prepare submissions, or suggest the types of evidence that may support their case. However, access to legal information is not the same as legal advice, and AI-generated material can be inaccurate or incomplete.
A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) provides a stark example of what can happen when a self-represented litigant places too much trust in artificial intelligence.
In Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd, Judge Symons described the proceeding as a:
“cautionary tale about the dangers of befriending Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots who masquerade as legal advisors.”
What happened in Ba v Sterling Parts Australia?
Mr Ba was a delivery driver who commenced proceedings against Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd and Sterling Parts (Melbourne) Pty Ltd, as a Self-Represented Applicant.
Among other things, he alleged that he had been incorrectly classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee and that his engagement had been terminated in contravention of the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act. He also pursued claims relating to alleged underpayments and employment entitlements.
Central to his case was an “Evidence List” containing 38 separate documents. Those documents were said to substantiate key aspects of his claim and were repeatedly referenced throughout his Statement of Claim.
However, when the respondents asked to inspect those documents, Mr Ba did not produce them. The respondents made repeated requests and ultimately served a Notice to Produce seeking the documents identified in the Evidence List. The Court subsequently made an order requiring their production, with the consequence that the proceeding could be dismissed if Mr Ba failed to comply.
Despite this, Mr Ba ultimately produced only one of the identified documents, the termination email. The other documents were not produced.
The Court inferred that the Evidence List had been generated using artificial intelligence and that the documents identified in it either did not exist or did not correspond with the descriptions that had been given to them. The proceeding was ultimately dismissed.
Losing a Claim Before it is Heard
This is perhaps the most important lesson from Ba.
The respondents disputed that Mr Ba's substantive employment claims had merit. However, the Court did not ultimately determine those claims following a trial on their merits. Instead, the proceeding was dismissed because of the way in which the case had been prepared and conducted.
This case highlighted that a person commencing proceedings must also properly identify the legal cause of action, plead the relevant facts, preserve and produce evidence, comply with court orders and procedural rules, meet deadlines and put their case in a form which allows the other party, and ultimately the Court, to understand and answer it.
Failure to do so can prevent the Court from ever reaching the underlying dispute.
The Algorithm Is Not Accountable, You Are
The Court drew an important distinction between an AI system and a lawyer. A legal practitioner owes professional and ethical obligations to their client and obligations to the Court and the administration of justice. On the other hand, AI does not.
An AI chatbot does not hold a practising certificate. It does not assume professional responsibility for the advice it gives. It does not have an obligation to protect your interests, identify that you are pursuing the wrong cause of action or warn you that your evidence does not prove what you think it proves.
Importantly, the Court in Ba referred to the tendency of large language models to produce answers which accommodate or reinforce a user's position rather than necessarily challenge the assumptions behind the question. That creates a particular danger in employment disputes.
Self-representation is No Excuse
Courts and tribunals regularly deal with self-represented parties and may make appropriate allowances for those without legal training. However, self-representation does not relieve a party of responsibility for the documents they file or the representations they make to the Court.
In Ba, the Court described the applicant’s repeated failure to produce the relevant documents as a “pattern of obstruction and prevarication”. The continued reliance on material that could not be produced or verified was treated seriously, with the Court observing that the conduct came close to raising issues of contempt.
The Fair Work Commission is Tightening its Approach to AI
The Fair Work Commission has published specific guidance governing the use of generative AI in Commission proceedings, which will apply from 20 October 2026.
Where generative AI is used to create, write, edit or otherwise prepare material for a Commission matter, parties will be required to disclose its use, check that the material is accurate and relevant and ensure that factual assertions are supported by genuine evidence and legal authorities. If the document is a witness statement or declaration, you must check that it is based on your own knowledge, reflects your own words and is true to the best of your knowledge.
The Commission expressly warns that non-compliance can have serious consequences. Your documents may be given less weight or disregarded, you may be ordered to pay the other party’s costs in addition to your own, and your application may ultimately be dismissed.
AI may be a useful starting point, but it cannot replace the expertise and judgement of a qualified legal practitioner. Whether you are an employee considering a claim or an employer responding to one, obtaining legal advice early can make all the difference. Contact Voice Lawyers today to understand your rights, obligations and the best way forward.
Article by Ee-Shuen Goh and Kayte Lewis
This article is general in nature and is not legal advice. If you need help dealing with Fair Work Commission applications or require assistance with updating your workplace contracts, procedures and policies, or other employment law matters, Voice Workplace Lawyers can assist you.
We help people and businesses navigate the complexities of the Fair Work Act and workplace laws with confident and practical advice. You can contact us at office@voicelawyers.com, give us a call at 02 9261 1954 or use the link on our website to book a consultation to speak with one of our lawyers.