Can you use ChatGPT for your employment tribunal claim?

If you're representing yourself, there's a good chance you've asked ChatGPT, or another AI tool, to help with your tribunal documents. You can. There's no general rule stopping you using ChatGPT for your employment tribunal claim or an appeal. But in September 2026 the Employment Appeal Tribunal set out what it expects from anyone who does, and it applies to people without a lawyer as much as to lawyers.

The short version: whatever the tool writes, you are responsible for it.

This post provides general information about the Employment Tribunal process. It does not constitute legal advice about your specific situation.

What happened in Hancox

In Hancox v Sutherland and Others [2026] EAT 139, a man representing himself appealed after his claim was struck out. Before the hearing he sent in a skeleton argument (the written summary of your arguments that you send before an appeal hearing) that ChatGPT had produced. It ran to 300 pages.

The EAT's own Practice Direction says a skeleton argument should generally be 5 to 15 pages, and that if it runs past 20 the judge can make you send a shorter one. The judge said the 300-page document got in the way of preparing for the hearing, and in the end it wasn't relied on at all. With help from a volunteer barrister through the EAT's free advice scheme, the appellant argued a single point, and that point went forward to a full hearing.

The judge then used the case to set out a standard for everyone who uses AI to prepare documents.

Using ChatGPT for your employment tribunal claim: three things every document needs

At a minimum, anything you send in has to:

• Follow the rules. Each kind of document has its own requirements: length, layout and what it must contain. AI tools often get them wrong, so check the rules for your document yourself.
• Be accurate. You have to check it as thoroughly as you reasonably can, so that the facts, the evidence and the law are right and the tribunal isn't misled. That includes every case it mentions.
• Stick to what matters. Only the relevant points, focused on your best arguments, in a form a judge can follow, without saying the same thing several times.

The judge was clear about two things that are not acceptable. One is sending in what the AI produced without checking it. The other is leaving it to the other side to find the mistakes.

What "checked" means in practice

AI tools are known to invent cases, or to cite a real case for something it doesn't say. Courts call these "hallucinations". The EAT judgment lists a run of recent cases where this happened to lawyers and to people representing themselves.

So for every case your document mentions:

1. Look it up. Judgments are free to read on the National Archives' Find Case Law service.
2. Check the name, the year and the reference match.
3. Read the paragraph you're relying on, and make sure it says what your document says it says.
4. If you can't find it, take it out.

Do the same with the facts. Check every date, name and quotation against your own documents. An AI tool will happily fill a gap with something that sounds right.

Does this apply in the employment tribunal as well?

Yes. Hancox was an appeal, but the judge put the standard in terms of any court or tribunal. Recent Presidential Guidance on interim relief applications makes the same point: there's no objection to using AI, but it often produces submissions that are too long, too complicated and miss the key points, and the person using it has to make sure what they send is short, relevant and accurate.

Judges have also been told that if a document looks as though AI wrote it, they can ask you whether it did and what checks you made. Expect that question, and answer it honestly.

Two traps to watch for

New points on appeal. The EAT won't usually look at an argument you didn't make at the employment tribunal. AI tools don't know what was argued at your hearing, so they can add new points. Check every ground against what was actually argued. If you do want to raise something new, it needs a proper application, and the appeals pages explain how the appeal stage works.

Your evidence has to be yours. A witness statement is your account of what you remember, in your words. The judgment notes a case where the court treated witness statements prepared with ChatGPT with caution. Using a tool to tidy the layout is one thing. Letting it add detail, or change how you describe what happened, risks the tribunal trusting your account less.

Be careful what you paste in, too. The other side's documents, and anything with other people's personal details in it, shouldn't go into a public AI tool without checking who else can see it.

What can happen if you don't

The judge pointed to a range of responses: a skeleton argument sent back for a shorter version, less time to speak at the hearing, and, where the Practice Direction isn't followed, the appeal being postponed or dismissed, or a costs order being made. In the most serious cases the courts have gone further. Where checks haven't been done properly, the judgment says, judges are likely to ask questions, and penalties may follow.

None of that is aimed at people using AI sensibly. The judge accepted that these tools can help people who have no other access to legal help.

If you need more than a tool

If your case has reached a point where the stakes are high, you should seek legal advice. You can instruct a barrister directly under the direct access scheme: you keep running the paperwork yourself, and the barrister advises you on the difficult points or argues your case at the hearing. If you'd rather hand the whole case over, a solicitor can take it on and run it for you. And if cost is the obstacle, Citizens Advice, your union or a local law centre may be able to help.

The takeaways

• You can use ChatGPT and other AI tools for your tribunal documents.
• You are responsible for every word you send, whoever or whatever wrote it.
• Check every case, date and quotation yourself before you send anything.
• Keep documents short and focused on your best points. Longer isn't more persuasive.
• On appeal, make sure AI hasn't added points you didn't argue below.