Sparke Helmore's MAD (Motor Accidents Division) - PIC rules and directions special edition - Issue 149

Welcome to this special edition of Sparke Helmore’s MAD Publication – a collection of the new Personal Injury Commission (PIC) rules and directions, which commenced on 1 January 2026.

On 1 January 2026, the Personal Injury Commission (Amendment No 4) Rule 2025 came into effect. Most relevant to non-expert parties seeking to adduce written evidence (predominantly claimants, insurers and their legal representatives), rule 33A says: 

 33A Use of generative artificial intelligence in written statements

(1) Generative artificial intelligence must not be used to generate the content of a written statement, including by altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing a person’s evidence.

(2) Each written statement must include a statement that generative artificial intelligence was not used to generate the content of the written statement.

(3) Generative artificial intelligence must not be used to generate the content of an annexure or exhibit to a written statement unless the annexure or exhibit includes a statement that generative artificial intelligence was used.

A written statement is defined in sub (4) as a written statement of evidence on which a party to applicable proceedings proposes to rely but does not include an expert’s report to which rule 33B applies.

For experts giving evidence in PIC proceedings, rule 33B applies. This says: 

33B Use of generative artificial intelligence in certain expert’s reports

(1) This rule applies to an expert's report for applicable proceedings, including an expert's report attached to a pre-filing statement for applicable proceedings. 

(2) Generative artificial intelligence must not be used to generate the content of the expert's report unless-- 

(a) the report includes a statement that-- 

(i) generative artificial intelligence was used to generate the content of the report, and 

(ii) the use of generative artificial intelligence complied with any procedural direction about the use of generative artificial intelligence, and 

(b) the report identifies the following-- 

(i) the part of the report generated using generative artificial intelligence, 

(ii) the name and version of the generative artificial intelligence program used, 

(iii) the date of the use, and 

(c) an attachment to the report identifies the prompts, script or data provided to the generative artificial intelligence program.

For the purposes of rules 33A and 33B, ’applicable proceedings’ are defined in rule 5 as: 

(a) Commission proceedings, 

(b) mediation proceedings, 

(c) medical assessment proceedings, 

(d) merit review proceedings, 

(e) panel review proceedings. 

Critically, rule 33B (3) places a positive obligation on experts, stating:

If generative artificial intelligence was not used to generate the content of the expert's report, the report must include a statement that generative artificial intelligence was not used to generate the content of the report.

Compliance with this rule has been seen in many of the expert reports served and relied upon by parties in motor accident proceedings of late and is very likely to be a focus for regulatory compliance going forwards. 

There is no equivalent in rule 33A for parties adducing written statements as evidence.

More generally, rule 133B has been introduced surrounding AI use in proceedings. 

133B Artificial intelligence use in proceedings

(1) A party must not-- 

(a) join artificial intelligence technology to applicable proceedings, or 

(b) otherwise use artificial intelligence technology during the proceedings. 

(2) In this rule-- "artificial intelligence technology" means an artificial intelligence tool, application or program. 

The purpose of these rules is to maintain consistency with relevant amendments to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the Supreme Court of NSW’s Practice Note Gen 23, and the Judicial Guidelines on the use of Gen AI. These changes demonstrate the changing nature of the legal industry influenced by AI generally. Relevant publications are regularly released by the NSW Law Society (see for example here).

Solicitors must in addition to the rules in the PIC always be mindful of the interplay between using generative AI and their obligations under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015.