County Court of Victoria issues guidance on the use of AI in Court proceedings
Continuing the rapid uptake of formal artificial intelligence (AI) guidance across Australian courts in 2026, the County Court of Victoria has released a new Practice Note (PNCCV 1-2026) on the use of AI by court users, together with separate guidelines for the use of AI by Judicial Officers (Judicial Guidelines).
The release follows similar guidance issued by the Federal Court of Australia in April, the Supreme Court of Victoria in May, and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia shortly thereafter.
Continued alignment with the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Report
Like its predecessors, the County Court's instruments are informed by the principles and recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's 'Artificial Intelligence in Victoria's Courts and Tribunals' Report (tabled in February 2026).
The County Court's Practice Note explicitly states that its content has been informed by the eight guiding principles formulated by the Commission’s Report, including accountability and independence, privacy and data security and human oversight and monitoring.
In the months since the Commission’s Report was tabled in Parliament, four Australian courts have now issued formal guidance drawing on its findings. This pace of adoption demonstrates both the urgency with which courts are addressing AI-related risks, and the influence of the Commission’s work in shaping a coherent, principles-based approach across jurisdictions.
Key features of the Practice Note
Definitions
Consistent with the Commission’s recommendations, and the approach recently adopted by the Supreme Court of Victoria, the County Court’s Practice Note adopts clear definitions distinguishing between public AI and closed AI.
Public AI is defined as AI tools 'openly accessible to the public, typically via the internet', trained on broad datasets for general purpose use.
Closed AI is defined in contrast, as tools that are 'generally not openly accessible to the public' and which include 'controls to reduce risks related to privacy or confidentiality settings that protect information from being made publicly available or used to train the AI tool'.
This distinction mirrors the approach taken by the Supreme Court of Victoria and reflects the recommendations made, and the concerns raised, by the Commission in its Report regarding the differing risk profiles of these tools, particularly in relation to legal professional privilege and confidentiality.
Duties of court users
The Practice Note makes clear that court users must ensure the use of AI does not directly or indirectly mislead another participant in the litigation process or the court.
In civil proceedings court users remain subject to the obligations imposed by the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), including certifying that claims have a proper basis.
Significantly, the Practice Note warns that filing a court document containing inaccuracies could result in costs orders.
Duties of lawyers
Lawyers are reminded of their professional duties to act with competence and diligence, and to provide independent advice. Regardless of the AI tools used, lawyers must exercise oversight and verify the accuracy and suitability of information provided by any AI system.
The Practice Note expressly warns that lawyers who rely on unverified AI outputs in court documents may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and may also be subject to personal costs orders.
This echoes the enforcement approach taken by the Supreme Court of Victoria, whose own Practice Note similarly provides for referral to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.
The message is clear: reliance on unverified AI outputs brings with it serious consequences.
Privacy and confidentiality
For public AI tools, court users must not enter any confidential or sensitive information.
For closed AI tools, court users who input private, confidential or sensitive information must exercise caution and review contractual terms or privacy and confidentiality settings that the information will be kept within a secure environment.
This approach, which applies stricter requirements to public AI tools while permitting more scope for closed systems subject to appropriate verification, is now a consistent feature across the Federal Court, the Supreme Court of Victoria and the County Court of Victoria.
All three courts reflect the same underlying concern identified in the Commission’s Report. Inputting case materials into AI tools creates a real and immediate privilege risk that lawyers must actively manage (see our article ‘Beware of artificial intelligence and potential waiver of legal professional privilege’ for more information).
Preparation of evidence
The Practice Note requires that specific caution be exercised where generative AI tools are used to assist in the preparation of affidavit materials, witness statements or other evidentiary documents.
Court users must ensure that documents are sworn, affirmed or finalised in a form that reflects the knowledge and words of the person.
Verification requirement
The verification requirements are detailed and practical. Content produced using AI must be verified with 'meaningful human control'. Court users remain responsible for ensuring that AI-generated content is current, complete, accurate and applicable to the jurisdiction.
Notably, the Practice Note provides specific guidance on the verification process. Court users are required to:
- fact-check and proofread content;
- edit and adapt content to suit the situation; and
- verify that references exist and stand for the legal positions attributed to them.
The Practice Note expressly states that one AI tool cannot be used to verify content generated by another AI tool.
The court may direct court users to provide further information about documents produced with AI assistance. Users must be prepared to identify specific portions produced using AI and explain how the output was verified.
In short, vigilance and accountability are paramount.
Judicial Guidelines
Separately, the Judicial Guidelines establish that Judicial Officers must not use generative AI for judicial decision-making.
However, this prohibition does not prevent supportive uses of AI by Judicial Officers or court staff.
Permissible supportive uses include organising and locating case materials, producing summaries and chronologies from case materials, as an aid to legal research, and for proof-reading. The Judicial Guidelines make clear, however, that these uses are not a substitute for reading and listening to evidence and submissions, or fact finding when called for in judicial decision-making.
A growing consensus
The release of the County Court's Practice Note and Judicial Guidelines confirms that a clear consensus is emerging across Australian courts as to how AI should be governed. Three themes are now consistent across all recent instruments:
- courts are distinguishing between public and closed AI tools and applying more stringent restrictions to the former;
- there is a consistent emphasis that court users bear ultimate responsibility for their use of AI; and
- the Commission’s principles-based framework is the foundation for guidance.
What's next?
The pace of reform in this space shows no sign of slowing down. In the four months since the Commission’s Report was tabled, four courts have issued formal AI guidance.
Several broader reforms recommended by the Commission remain outstanding, including the establishment of a cross-jurisdictional technology and innovation committee and amendments to instruments such as the Expert Witness Code of Conduct.
It remains to be seen how other courts and tribunals will respond. As the body of court guidance grows, these wider structural reforms appear to become increasingly inevitable. Watch this space closely for further developments.
Should you wish to learn more, including about the intersection of AI and legal professional privilege, see our podcast series, ‘AI and legal professional privilege’.
This article was prepared with assistance from Marcus Jones, Law Graduate.
Contacts
