New South Wales has not banned AI in expert reports.
Two of its courts require the court's permission before AI is used on the content of an expert report.
One major forum does not require permission at all, and instead requires disclosure and record keeping.
Which one applies to you depends entirely on where your report is going.
Where the court's permission is required
In the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Land and Environment Court, generative AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of an expert report, or any part of one, without the court's prior leave.
Prior is the operative word. This is permission first, not disclosure afterwards, and it cannot be sought once the report has been written.
The requirement also reaches some workers compensation work that people assume sits elsewhere.
Work injury damages reports referred to in a pre-filing statement under section 315 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act are brought into the same regime. So "it is a workers compensation matter" is not, on its own, an answer. What leave actually means
Leave is permission from the court. The lawyer who requested your report is the one who applies for it, and it is ordinarily sought at the first directions hearing.
The application sets out the program and version to be used, how it will be used, the prompts, and the documents going into it. If leave is granted, your report identifies which parts were AI assisted, and you keep records of how the tool was used.
The practical consequence is that this is a conversation to have at the point of instruction. Not when you sit down to write.
Where permission is not required
The Personal Injury Commission, which is where a great many workers compensation and motor accident medico-legal reports can be, took a different path. It has its own procedural direction and Commission rules, in force since 1 January 2026, and there is no prior leave requirement. What is required instead is disclosure and record keeping.
There is a detail in that regime which almost nobody I speak to knows about.
Where generative AI has not been used in preparing the report, the report must include a statement to that effect.
So from the beginning of this year, a Commission expert report needs a statement about AI one way or the other. If you used nothing at all, the report should say so. Silence is no longer neutral, and if your report template does not have an AI statement in it, that is the thing to fix this week.
The other New South Wales courts
Other New South Wales courts and tribunals have published their own practice notes on AI, and they do not all take the same approach.
We have not had those reviewed, so if you write for the District Court, the Local Court, NCAT or the Industrial Relations Commission, check the practice note that applies to your matter.
The distinction that does the real work
Underneath all of this sits one question, and it is not the one people expect.
It is not how much of the report was AI assisted. It is not whether you supplied the source material. It is not even whether you reviewed the output afterwards.
It is the character of what the tool produced.
Organising materials, building chronologies, indexes and schedules, transcription including by an AI scribe, translation, formatting, and summarising source documents are treated as preparatory.
None of that triggers the leave requirement, provided the substantive content and opinion are not themselves AI drafted.
Output that generates proposed wording, narrative, analysis, reasoning, conclusions or opinions is treated differently. That may be drafting or preparing the content of an expert report, and in the Supreme Court and Land and Environment Court it requires the court's permission first.
The part that surprises people is that this applies notwithstanding that you supplied the materials, formed a preliminary view, or reviewed the output afterwards. Checking it carefully is necessary. It does not change which category the use falls into.
What to do on Monday
Ask the instructing solicitor which forum the report is for, in writing, at the point of instruction, and keep the answer.
If it is the Supreme Court or the Land and Environment Court, raise AI use before you start, because leave is ordinarily sought at the first directions hearing.
If it is the Personal Injury Commission, put an AI statement in your template.
Keep a record as you go of what AI you used, what for, which parts it assisted with, and what you put into it. Reconstructing that months later is miserable, and some forums require it annexed to the report.
Current as at 15 October 2026. This is general information about what the court rules require. It is not legal advice and it is not advice about your report, your matter or your proceeding. We obtained advice from a commercial law firm for Virtuosa. For your own report, check the position with your instructing solicitor or your own legal adviser.