Written by Amaya Corcuera, Solicitor
There has been a noticeable shift in the Employment Tribunal over recent years, and it is not just the length of the waiting list. The rise of artificial intelligence is changing the way claimants bring their claims, and not always for the better.
More claims, greater complexity
AI tools have made it easier than ever for individuals to draft and submit tribunal claims without legal representation. On one level, this is understandable. Access to justice matters, and legal advice is expensive. But the practical consequences are becoming harder to ignore.
Claims that might once have been straightforward unfair dismissal applications are now routinely accompanied by additional heads of claim – whistleblowing, discrimination, breach of contract – pleaded not because the facts support them, but because an AI has identified them as theoretically available and added them in.
The result is that respondents face broader, more complex claims, hearings take longer, and a Tribunal system already under enormous pressure is stretched further still.
A warning shot from Australia
A recent decision from the Fair Work Commission in Australia offers a stark illustration of where this can lead, and a possible indication of the direction of travel.
In Reece Hoverd v M & J D Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1013, an employee resigned following a dispute about a temporary change to his shift times and being assigned labouring duties. He subsequently filed a claim for constructive dismissal. The Commission found that there had been no dismissal at all, the employee had simply resigned and had not been forced to do so.
But the more significant part of the decision concerned the quality of the arguments advanced. The employee’s submissions relied on clauses in his employment contract that did not exist, clauses in the applicable Waste Management Award 2020 that did not exist, misquoted contract terms, and legally incorrect arguments about additional hours and demotion. The Commission found that AI tools had been used to draft those submissions and that the tools had, in effect, invented the legal basis for the claim.
The Deputy President’s findings were striking. The applicant was found to have displayed a disregard for facts, relied on incoherent legal arguments, contrived a basis to claim compensation, and repeatedly misrepresented what the contract actually said.
Costs were awarded against the claimant. In a jurisdiction where costs orders are the exception rather than the rule, that is a significant outcome.
Could we see more costs orders in the UK?
The Employment Tribunal in England and Wales operates on a similar principle: costs are not awarded routinely, and a claimant is generally not at risk of paying a respondent’s legal costs simply because they lose.
A costs order requires a finding that a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings, or that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Where a claimant advances arguments based on contractual terms that do not exist, or statutory rights that have been fabricated by an AI tool, the question of whether that conduct crosses the threshold for a costs order becomes a live one. Tribunals are not without the tools to respond. What may change is the willingness to use them.
It is not difficult to imagine a Tribunal taking a dim view of submissions that cite non-existent provisions, particularly where the misrepresentation is repeated after the error has been pointed out. The Australian decision demonstrates that adjudicators are prepared to call this out explicitly and to attach consequences to it.
Advice for employers in the UK
None of this is to say that AI has no place in the Tribunal process. Used carefully and responsibly, to understand procedure, identify relevant legislation, or structure an argument, it can genuinely assist unrepresented parties in navigating a complex system. The problem arises when it is used uncritically, without the user understanding its limitations or checking its output against the actual documents and law.
For respondents and their advisers, the practical message is to scrutinise claims carefully at an early stage. Where pleaded claims appear to have been added without any obvious factual foundation, or where contract terms are cited that do not appear in the actual agreement, that is worth noting, both in case management and, where appropriate, in any application for costs.
For the Tribunal system itself, the concern is a straightforward one. The case backlog is already severe. If AI continues to generate complex, multi-headed claims built on invented legal foundations, and if there is no meaningful deterrent, the problem will only deepen.
A more consistent approach to costs, particularly in cases involving demonstrable misrepresentation, may be part of the answer. The Fair Work Commission in Australia has shown it is prepared to take that step. It will be interesting to see whether Employment Tribunals in the UK follow suit.
If you need advice or support with a tribunal claim contact Amaya on 07758 229673.