Ireland: Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Updates AI Guidance Following Recent Court of Appeal Judgment

In October 2025, the WRC published guidance on the use of AI tools. On 26 May 2026, this guidance was updated in response to the recent Court of Appeal judgement in the case of Guerin v O’ Doherty [2026] IECA 48.

In its guidance, the WRC outlines that a core principle for AI use is that parties remain responsible for what they submit. The onus of verifying information generated by AI tools is on the person using that tool. In addition, the WRC recommends disclosing that you have used AI to assist in preparing submissions, however this is not a strict requirement and disclosures are voluntary.

The WRC also highlights a number of risks throughout their guidance including:

• Inaccuracy or misleading information generated by AI including incorrect legal advice and invented legislation/case law references.
• Additional costs and delay for the other party in verifying AI generated content which may waste time and create extra work, which in turn delays the hearing of a matter.
• Privacy concerns, where free AI tools potentially store or reuse sensitive personal data if the prompts used contain them.

Emphasis is placed on the consequences of misuse, with the WRC noting that in serious cases wrong or misleading information can affect reliability and credibility of the user, which could adversely impact on how submissions are viewed.

Recent Court of Appeal Judgment

The Court of Appeal recently issued guidance on AI use in litigation in Guerin v Doherty [2026] IECA 48. Significantly in this case the defendant was self-represented and had utilised AI tools in preparing her submissions in support of her appeal.

The court underscored its concern that AI should be used appropriately as hallucinated case citations in the defendant’s submissions had added to the plaintiff’s solicitors’ workload, and to the plaintiff’s costs. This led to the court setting out the following principles:

1. Parties may use AI for research provided they do so responsibly and do not, “even inadvertently”, mislead the court;
2. AI use should be expressly disclosed to the court and other parties;
3. The party using AI remains responsible for the accuracy of their submissions;
4. Accuracy of submissions generated by AI should be independently verified; and
5. No authority should be cited without verification.

Commentary

While the WRC has taken a more permissive approach in their guidance, if a party to litigation seeks to rely on generative AI tools before the Irish courts, then failure to following the Guerin principles may result in the court sanctioning the party at fault. In Guerin, the Court held that disclosure is mandatory; “In all cases where they do so, they should expressly inform both the other parties and the court of their use of AI in this regard.” However, the WRC position remains that it encourages parties to be transparent about the use of AI, but that disclosure is optional; “If you use AI to help with research or drafting, you should consider telling the WRC and the other party, especially if AI generated part of your submission.”

Given there is a higher volume of self-represented complainants in the WRC it will be interesting to see if their divergence from the Guerin principles will continue, particularly as the use of AI tools is on the increase in WRC proceedings.