On 6 January 2026, the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) issued Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 on the use of artificial intelligence, establishing a framework for the use of AI tools in proceedings before the QFC Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal.
The Practice Direction applies to litigants, their legal representatives and other legal practitioners appearing before the Court and Tribunal. It recognises the use of AI in litigation and its potential to reduce costs and increase efficiency, while making clear that its use does not alter or limit the existing legal, professional and ethical obligations of court users.
The Judgment Preceding the Practice Direction
The Practice Direction followed a judgment issued by the QFC Civil and Commercial Court in 2025 concerning submissions in which one of the parties relied on authorities presented as decisions of the Court but which were subsequently found not to exist.
The case highlighted the importance of verifying legal authorities before relying on them in proceedings and formed part of the context preceding the issuance of the Practice Direction.
Responsibility for the Accuracy of Information
The Practice Direction confirms that court users remain responsible for the accuracy and reliability of information submitted to the Court and that the submission of material containing fabricated or unverifiable legal authorities may constitute a breach of their duties to the Court.
It also cautions that AI tools may generate inaccurate references or misstate the applicable law and may not reliably distinguish between different legal systems, creating a risk that foreign legal principles with no relevance to the dispute may be relied upon.
Accordingly, the Practice Direction requires any material produced using AI tools to be reviewed and verified for factual and legal accuracy before use. It also requires all legal citations to be checked against primary sources or recognised legal databases. The Court may disregard submissions or materials containing fictitious cases or legislation, or factual assertions unsupported by the evidence before it, and may take further action where appropriate.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Evidence
The Practice Direction also places clear restrictions on the use of AI tools in relation to evidence. AI must not be used to create evidence, and users must not prompt AI tools to fabricate or manipulate evidence.
Where visual or audio evidence has been generated or enhanced using multimodal AI tools, the party submitting that material must clearly disclose the use and source of the technology. The Court may also exclude and investigate any material suspected of being fabricated or manipulated where this has not been disclosed.
Confidentiality and Protection of Information
The Practice Direction places particular emphasis on maintaining confidentiality and protecting information when using AI tools.
It prohibits the input of confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected information into AI tools, except where private and secure AI platforms are used. It also encourages court users, where possible, to disable chat-history retention or use settings providing enhanced privacy protection.
The Practice Direction further provides that misuse of AI tools resulting in a breach of confidentiality may lead to sanctions or other appropriate measures.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Preparing eBundles
The Practice Direction also addresses the use of AI systems in creating or organising electronic bundles (eBundles). Parties must ensure that documents are correctly indexed and paginated and that the documents included are relevant to the proceedings.
Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of an eBundle remains with the party submitting it. eBundles must also comply with the requirements set out in Chapter 16 of the Court’s User Guide (the Maroon Book).
Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence
The Practice Direction does not impose a general requirement to disclose in advance the use of AI tools in preparing documents or submissions filed with the Court, unless the Court expressly requires such disclosure.
However, the Court may determine that the interests of justice or the proper conduct of proceedings require disclosure of the use of AI to the Court or to other parties. In such circumstances, the court user must be prepared to identify the parts prepared using AI-generated content and explain how the outputs were verified. The Court may also require an explanation or sworn statement in this regard.
This differs from visual or audio evidence generated or enhanced using AI, in respect of which the Practice Direction requires disclosure of the use and source of the technology when such evidence is submitted.
Consequences of Improper Use of Artificial Intelligence
The Practice Direction expressly identifies a number of consequences that may follow from the improper or misleading use of AI tools.
Depending on the nature and circumstances of the breach, the Court may disregard affected submissions or evidence in whole or in part, make costs orders against the relevant party, refer the matter to the appropriate professional or regulatory body, and initiate contempt proceedings where appropriate.
This approach is consistent with the Court’s 2025 judgment referred to above, which highlighted the importance of verifying legal authorities before relying on them in proceedings.
Conclusion
Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 does not prohibit the use of AI tools in litigation before the QFC Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal. Rather, it recognises the potential benefits of such tools in reducing costs and increasing efficiency, while confirming that their use does not alter the existing legal, professional and ethical responsibilities of court users.
The framework established by the Practice Direction is principally based on verifying the accuracy of AI-generated material, checking legal authorities against reliable sources, protecting confidential information, and complying with applicable disclosure requirements. Responsibility for material submitted to the Court therefore remains with the court user, irrespective of whether AI tools were used in its preparation.