It did not.
The issue was briefly considered in an application for reconsideration in Miss E Kaloudi Tsikni v Kontis & Alphakon Limited.
The respondents’ application for reconsideration was refused on a number of grounds. The Respondents put forward a number of bases for their application but the one we focus on here is their contention that it was impermissible for the Claimant to use ChatGPT to draft her witness evidence.
The tribunal confirmed that it was cognisant that the Claimant had relied on AI tools to generate her witness statement. The tribunal gave consideration to this in weighing the evidence they heard. The Claimant (whose mother tongue was Greek) was recalled to give evidence in Greek with the assistance of a translator and the tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant’s evidence had been adequately tested. The Respondents also had ample opportunity to test that evidence.
There appears to be nothing to suggest that a tribunal will find fault with a litigant in person making use of AI tools to draft their evidence. Clearly it is incumbent on the person giving evidence to ensure that the facts contained in their evidence are true to the best of their knowledge and belief however how they put those facts onto the written page appears to be of little interest to the Employment Tribunals.
Given the lack of resources available to litigants in person in preparing their cases for hearing the tribunals are perhaps grateful to receive coherently drafted evidence which has been produced by AI tools.
The Order refusing the application for reconsideration is a useful reiteration of the relevant legal principles:
- Rule 68 allows a tribunal to reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interest of justice to do so.
- A reconsideration may confirm, vary or revoke the decision.
- Rule 69 requires the application to be made within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
- Rule 70 provides that the application must be refused if there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.
- Prescribed grounds were set out in the antecedent 2004 rules including a generic interests of justice provision, a decision being wrongly made due to administrative error, a party not receiving notice of the hearing, the decision being made in the absence of a party, new evidence had become available. The 2013 rules are consistent with the 2004 rules.
- MOJ v Burton [2016] in the Court of Appeal provides guidance on the interests of justice test.
- The importance of finality in litigation was emphasised by Simler P in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust (EAT/0002/16).
The original decision of the Employment Tribunals in this case concerned allegations of sexual harassment and other claims (unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract for failure to pay expenses and pension contributions). Remedy for the sexual harassment finding will be decided at a separate hearing but the judgment makes harrowing reading.
This blog was written by Manuela de Castro, Senior Solicitor at didlaw.
