In a further development following our recent article, "AI in the dock: claim struck out after litigant relies on automated legal tool", the court has dismissed a subsequent application by the claimant to set aside the strike out order.
The claimant, who acted as a litigant in person and had been present at the original strike out hearing, sought to overturn the court's decision after judgment had been entered against her. The application and DAC Beachcroft Claim Limited's response opposing the application was considered by the court and dismissed without the need for a further hearing.
The outcome serves as a reminder that parties cannot use set aside applications simply to revisit issues that have already been determined by the court following a hearing at which they were present and had the opportunity to advance their case.
Where a judgment has been reached after a fully contested hearing, an applicant must demonstrate a proper legal basis for the court to interfere with that decision. Mere disagreement with the outcome is unlikely to be sufficient.
The decision is a positive development for defendants dealing with claims pursued by litigants in person who rely on AI-generated legal assistance or automated document drafting tools.
While such technology can help individuals access information and understand legal processes, it does not relieve parties of their obligation to:
- Comply with procedural rules and court orders
- Properly plead and evidence their case
- Advance legally sustainable arguments
- Identify an appropriate legal basis for any post-judgment application
The court's refusal to entertain a further hearing also demonstrates a willingness to take a proportionate approach where applications are considered to lack merit.
The decisions reinforce the court's expectation that all parties — including litigants in person using AI-powered legal tools — comply with procedural requirements and pursue only properly arguable claims and applications.
DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited continues to monitor litigants in person and their increasing use of AI-assisted legal tools in litigation, their impact on claims handling and disruption methods.
If you would like to discuss the implications of these developments for defending casualty fraud claims, please contact us.
