Judge describes document as highly repetitive, prolix, confusing, difficult to follow
In an insurance matter, Australia’s Federal Court referred to a proposed pleading as “AI slop” and said it fell short of its expectations in [1.3], [1.4], and [2.1] in its Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI).
In Barron v BT Funds Management Ltd (Leave to File) [2026] FCA 1220, the applicant brought a proceeding that involved salary continuance insurance and total and permanent disability insurance.
The applicant filed an amended statement of claim against the Australian Financial Complaints Authority Ltd (AFCA), BT Funds Management Ltd (BTFM), and TAL Life Insurance Services (TAL).
On 2 June 2026, Justice Stewart of the Federal Court issued orders to:
The judge criticized the amount of repetition in the pleading, which had 56 paragraphs across 16 pages.
The applicant brought an interlocutory application for leave to file a further amended statement of claim. His proposed pleading contained a very small font, single-spaced lines, 400 paragraphs across 33 pages, and 112 references to filenames of documents saved on his computer.
The two remaining respondents opposed the proposed pleading.
During the hearing, the applicant confirmed that he had produced the proposed pleading with generative artificial intelligence (genAI).
Justice Stewart of the Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application for leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim. However, the judge refused to dismiss the applicant’s proceeding against the two remaining respondents.
The judge explained that the applicant could potentially plead a reasonable cause of action against TAL based on policy wording that applied before 1 January 2018, novated to TAL’s predecessor, Westpac Life Insurance Services Ltd.
According to the judge, if such a claim did exist, the applicant could possibly plead a claim against BTFM based on its acceptance of TAL’s reliance on the incorrect policy wording.
The judge ordered no costs, as the two respondents had sought none.
Justice Stewart of the Federal Court described the proposed pleading as “AI slop.”
According to the judge: “The AI platform available to me offers the following answer to the prompt “What is AI slop?”: “AI slop” is a disparaging term for low-quality content produced by generative AI, often rapidly and in large quantities, with little human judgement, checking or editing. It may be grammatically fluent or visually polished while being repetitive, vague, inaccurate, incoherent or devoid of substance.”
The judge accepted that the proper and prudent use of genAI could help litigants present their cases better. However, the judge stressed that genAI could produce “slop” if litigants failed to use the tool thoughtfully and critically.
Justice Stewart of the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the proposed pleading would likely cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceeding under r 16.02(2)(d). The judge characterised the document as highly repetitive, prolix, confusing, and very difficult to follow.
The judge pointed out that the proposed pleading lacked consecutively numbered paragraphs in the first few pages, as required by r 16(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
While some documents to which the further amended statement of claim referred were in the evidence, the judge noted that these documents had different names, such that the proposed pleading’s references were meaningless.
Here are some other recent Australian decisions touching upon the use of artificial intelligence.
In an estate proceeding, the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal issued a 2 July 2026 decision denying leave to appeal sought by the deceased’s son, who had apparently used AI to prepare a written case that included multiple references to non-existent or irrelevant authorities.
In a proceeding where the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s second division dismissed an unlawful termination claim on 1 July 2026, the judge described the case as “a cautionary tale about the dangers of befriending Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots who masquerade as legal advisors.”
On 21 April 2026, the ACT Supreme Court ruled that a corporate director’s reliance on genAI to produce written submissions, including nonexistent legal authority, weighed against accepting his legal qualifications as a factor placing him above a lay person seeking to represent the corporation.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest insurance law news on the main page!
