6th annual ADR Address of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Suzanne Mackenzie*
I am grateful for the invitation of the Chief Justice for the invitation to speak to you this evening.
Before I start, I just wish to make it clear that my topic – the title for this session – is not about the resolution of fencing disputes between neighbours! I apologise in advance for those of you who attended tonight hoping for answers to disputes between warring neighbours.
Introduction
My address this evening concerns the increased use of artificial intelligence – “AI” – in the sphere of alternative dispute resolution.
I should commence with a confession that despite my participation on the Chief Justice’s AI committee and the District Courts IT committee I had little idea about the truly overwhelming mountains of publications on artificial intelligence. So with that, I must confess to using AI to help with my research for this paper.
I will be using the term “AI” in the broader sense, so that it also picks up on the notion of “Online Dispute Resolution” or “ODR”. I will also be focusing on the use of generative AI – known as “Gen-AI”, which mimics human-generated input, and how that kind of AI, using digital algorithms, has been applied to dispute resolution, removing the need for human decision-making.
AI and the legal profession
It has been said that the legal profession is on the cusp of a revolution in the way that law will be practised; and that this is not an exaggeration, but a statement that reflects how AI will alter, and has already altered, how lawyers do business.[1]
There would appear to be an acceptance by Australian courts of the inevitability of AI becoming part of our justice system. Our community is rapidly adopting AI in many other areas; anyone with children of university-age and below will know how quickly AI has become de rigueur for students. It has also enveloped the practice of medicine and driven tectonic changes in the engineering, architectural and accounting professions.
Since the launch of ChatGPT in March 2023, and the launch of other similar large language models (or LLMs) – such as Google Gemini and Microsoft CoPilot, there have been rapid changes to the workplace for the legal profession. I expect most law firms now have access to one or more of the many legal Gen-AI platforms – with their often curiously homey names, like: Harvey; Paxton; Clio; Claude; Archie AI; Mary Technology; Habeas; AI Legal Assist; CourtAid and more.
These legal AI platforms are not only capable of assisting lawyers with legal research and document preparation, but they are also performing the otherwise labour-intensive tasks of due diligence, compliance and discovery. There is fierce competition between the different Gen-AI platforms and private law firms; law firms are nervously not wishing to make a mistake in choosing the wrong platform and there would not seem to be any consensus yet as to which platforms perform best. Through this transition there are opportunities for smaller firms and individual practitioners, including barristers, to leap-frog their larger or more experienced opponents with the clever use of AI. However, there is also a risk that the larger firms with bigger budgets will increase their dominance making it more difficult for sole practitioners and smaller firms to compete.
There are also those Gen-AI platforms that seek to by-pass the need for lawyers entirely, like the “DoNotPay” and the “Legal Aid Ally” apps: which purport to be able to assist consumers to draft legal letters and “fight big corporations” and “beat bureaucracy”.
The zeitgeist of the day would seem to be that lawyers must learn and adapt to this new and uncertain world of Gen-AI or they will be left in its wake.
AI and the Courts[2]
There is, however, a nervousness about AI. One of the key problems with Gen-AI is that its responses often sound authoritative and sensible when in fact they are inaccurate and incorrect. There are also the now often reported instances of AI hallucinations or fabrications where authorities and legislation are simply invented. There are also risks for loss of confidentiality of communications and privacy breaches; the potential loss of legal professional privilege; and exposure for users to breaches of copyright.
Though understandably nervous; thankfully, thus far, Australian courts are not demonstrating the tendencies of the Luddites!
The courts have responded differently to the use of AI by practitioners.[3] As most of you will know, some jurisdictions – like the NSW State Courts, have taken a strict approach in their practice note, proscribing the use of Gen-AI for certain aspects of proceedings – like the preparation of evidence and expert reports.[4] In Victoria, the approach is less restrictive with guidance is given to practitioners about when to exercise “particular caution”.[5]
Most judges will also have seen Gen-AI being used by unrepresented parties who are able to cite in written submissions flourishes of legal principle or who might have set out in a rote manner a standard suite of grounds of appeal having no relevance to the matter before the court. For the time being, most of this is being managed by the judiciary, the usage typically becomes very apparent during oral submissions.[6] Though I note that Chief Justice Gageler said last Friday that this “human filtering” for AI is already at an “unsustainable phase”.[7] The Queensland State Courts have issued guidance for non-lawyers about using Gen-AI.[8]
In South Australia, we have an electronic court management system – ECMS, which offers great scope for the integration of AI technologies, encompassing the criminal and civil jurisdictions of all three courts of general jurisdiction. We are currently awaiting (imminently, I understand) some official guidance from the Chief Justice about the use of Gen-AI. This follows an extensive survey to the profession conducted earlier this year.[9]
The point of mentioning what the courts are already grappling with in terms of AI is to set a backdrop for how the courts might eventually (and, perhaps, sooner rather than later) also deal with how Gen-AI is being used for alternative dispute resolution. For example, orders made for parties to engage in mediation may soon mean something very different from parties attending a private mediation or a mediation in the Numa mediation suite.[10]
Gen-AI as an instrument of disruption to dispute resolution
As Gen-AI infects the practice of law in Australia; it is inevitable that it will also engulf the way in which we have become accustomed to managing alternative dispute resolution. Commercial ADR is largely unregulated operating within the constraints of contract law unburdened by the institutional norms and procedural and evidentiary requirements that apply to courts. As such there is greater scope for Gen-AI to influence civil and commercial ADR than formal litigation within the courts.
My thesis is that Gen-AI will significantly disrupt the way in which courts and lawyers manage alternative dispute resolution of commercial and other civil litigation.
Underpinning my thesis is the notion that ADR or ODR is more susceptible to disruption by Gen-AI than formal litigation within the court system. As I have just noted, alternative dispute resolution largely operates only within the constraints of contract law. As such, provided there is no invalid ouster of jurisdiction clause or other illegality, the parties can agree that their disputes be resolved by such means as they please. While I have not yet seen any widespread take up of dispute resolution provisions in commercial contracts requiring the parties to firstly attend to resolution of any dispute on an ODR platform or via an AI-expert opinion, some standard terms and conditions come close (I will discuss those of eBay shortly).
The “Arbitrus.ai” platform (which I address later), run by “Fortuna Arbitration”, does provide an example of an AI-based dispute resolution clause, in fact it offers a template standard form “binding arbitration clause” – available to be copied and pasted from its website into “any contract”, along with rules for its AI-based dispute resolution procedure.[11] This standard provision also provides for the parties to “waive the right to resolve any [such] disputes through a trial by jury or judge or though any other arbitration or dispute resolution proceeding”, and any review of an arbitration decision is to be governed by the Arbitrus.ai rules.[12]
This necessarily gives rise to a question about whether, and, if yes, how the courts and governments should respond to these kinds of developments. This is particularly so in the face of private companies and public institutions who may view Gen-AI platforms as a “just, quick and cheap” solution,[13] or, in South Australian lingo: a “just, efficient and affordable” solution (being mindful of the comma after “just” in those phrases).
I think there is a real risk that the “just” element could be given less weight by institutions with budget constraints and companies with for-profit motives. The executive government and the courts need to remain alive to this risk.
This theme is not new thinking.
In 2018, former NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst posed the question, at the inaugural address of this lecture series: “ADR, ODR, and AI-DR, Do we even need courts anymore?”.
More recently, the compelling paper of Federal Court Justice Melissa Perry, published last year asked: What do judicial officers need to know about the risks of AI?,[14]She nicely described the present dilemma:
It is [therefore] no overstatement to say that we are at a pivotal point in human history, confronted with the reality of machines of exceptional power which are capable of being harnessed for the betterment of humankind but also capable of great harm.
The Bletchley Declaration of 2023 signed by Australia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, China, the United States and 25 other countries also recognised the opportunities potentially afforded by AI “to transform and enhance human wellbeing, peace and prosperity”, while also recognising the “potential for serious, even catastrophic harm, either deliberate or unintentional, stemming from the most significant capability of AI models”.[15]
AI systems can potentially be designed to replace judicial discretion through automated decision-making raising significant ethical and legal issues. To my mind the fear that AI will replace the work of the courts in the management of formal litigation is misplaced; or, at least, premature. Without significant government intervention (and difficult constitutional reforms) the courts will remain a central feature of dispute resolution, though possibly facing diminished activity from those accessing and harnessing Gen-AI dispute resolution platforms.
The closest I expect we might come to AI-functioning courts in the shorter term is a model currently operating in British Columbia, Canada – known as the Civil Resolution Tribunal or the CRT for short.
It is an entirely online tribunal, which has been designed to resolve specific types of disputes without the need for a traditional courtroom setting. The process is intended to be accessible, fast, and less expensive than going to court, and can often be completed without the involvement of a lawyer. The CRT has the authority to make enforceable decisions on several specific areas of law (similar to some claims dealt with here in the Magistrates Court):
- Small Claims – disputes over money or personal property valued at up to $5,000;
- Strata Property Disputes – issues related to strata (condominium) living, such as the interpretation of bylaws or rules (I assume this would also be akin to our community title laws);
- Motor Vehicle Accidents – disputes over quantum and fault for accidents, up to $50,000;
- Societies and Cooperative Associations Claims –disputes related to the Societies Act or a society’s constitution and bylaws.
The CRT dispute resolution process is primarily online and involves four main stages:
- Apply and Explore:The process starts with the Solution Explorer, an online tool that helps users understand their options and decide if the CRT is the right venue for their issue. If so, they file a claim (dispute notice) and pay a fee.
- Negotiation: The participants are provided with online tools to try and reach an agreement themselves.
- Facilitation:If negotiation fails, a CRT case manager (apparently a human interface as opposed to a chatbot) works with the parties via phone, email, or online messaging to help them find a resolution.
- Adjudication: If no agreement is reached through facilitation, the case is sent to an independent tribunal member (again a human interface). The tribunal member reviews all submitted evidence and arguments usually on the papers, and without any hearing, and makes a final, binding decision.
A final CRT order can be filed in BC Provincial Court or Supreme Court (depending on the amount of money involved) and becomes enforceable like a court order. A participant who disagrees with a decision can petition the BC Supreme Court for a judicial review, but the grounds for overturning a decision are limited (differing to our much broader minor civil review procedure in South Australia).
The CRT model would still seem to be within the shallow end of a fully-AI integrated court system. It maintains a human interface at a final decision-making stage (though not necessarily with a public hearing) and there is access to judicial review by a traditional court protecting aspects of natural justice.
Is there a case for AI ADR even if it is less palatable for adoption by the courts?
The question I have posed this evening exposes a potential for divergence in sentiment to AI being adopted in formal litigation within the court system, and AI as it is applied to the realm of alternative dispute resolution.
ADR has never masqueraded itself as a court engaged with the process of litigation.
ADR does not necessarily enter the sphere of judicial power in the sense of a sovereign authority having power to decide controversies between its subjects, or between itself and its subjects, concerning life, liberty and property. [16] In other words, considering AI in the ADR context does not invite the same existential questions as it does for AI’s role in formal litigation before the courts.
Putting ADR into this separate sphere and distancing it from the work of the courts has not always been uncontroversial. In the latter part of last century there was significant judicial and societal resistance to alternative dispute resolution as we know it today. Though there was enthusiasm for what was then described as “non-judicial dispute resolution mechanisms”, said to be “understandably driven by concerns about the costs, delays and stresses associated with court proceedings as well as undesired publicity which they may attract to the parties”, there were also concerns.[17] The concerns (including as expressed by former Chief Justice Gleeson) were about “power imbalances, the privatised nature of alternative dispute resolution and the ensuing lack of precedent”.[18] As one United States academic observed: [19]
informal institutions deprive a grievant of substantive rights. They are antinormative and urge the parties to compromise; … although this appears even handed, it works to the detriment of the party who is advancing a claim — typically the individual grievant.
Notwithstanding these earlier reservations, alternative dispute resolution has taken hold in our system. In 2014 the Productivity Commission published a report identifying access to justice issues within our civil litigation systems, and recommended community education and the use of ADR as a default mechanism for low-value disputes.[20] A key principle of access to justice is that disputes should be resolved in a timely way, and in a manner proportionate to the quantum or issues in dispute. The adoption of a Gen-AI ADR platform would seem align with this principle.
In South Australia, the establishment of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2015 reflected government endorsement of a single, consolidated tribunal to handle a range of civil and administrative law matters in a less formal and more accessible way than a court. The very existence of SACAT and its analogues in other states and territories shows the capacity for governments to accept alternative courses for flexible and informal dispute resolution.
By operation of our civil procedure rules, alternative dispute resolution is positively encouraged as a pre-trial measure to resolving civil disputes.[21]
The point I am attempting to make is that history shows that where there is a public appetite for faster, less expensive and more informal dispute resolution it will receive endorsement by government and the broader legal community.
So, why not endorsement for AI-based platforms for alternative dispute resolution?
Taken to extremes one might envisage some form of JusticeBot or ResolutionBot engaging with parties to resolve their disputes without the intervention of a human mediator: digital dispute resolution platforms – with names like “H-A-L-Yeh”[22] or “The Terminator”[23], will be places where parties to a civil dispute can agree to participate, digitally or electronically enter the details of their dispute and pertinent documents and have the chatbot decide the terms upon which they are to settle their dispute. A less extreme model might simply provide a private and safe neutral digital space for settlement discussions to occur between parties with the oversight of a human player, which allows the parties to determine the boundaries for resolving their dispute within the scope of set rules governing the operation of the platform.
Another feature likely to be in play for AI-ADR platforms is that they will be internationally based platforms accessible to Australian litigants. This brings them distinctly within the realm of international law and may pose additional difficulties for their supervision and regulation.
Questions for the executive government might be whether such platforms should be licensed and regulated. An example of such overarching regulation of mediation is the now repealed Mediation Act 1997 (ACT), which established standards for the registration and practice of private mediators. This legislation was replaced with the advent of court-ordered mediations and particular statutes providing for mediation of specific kinds of disputes.
Private mediation or dispute resolution operating across international borders already exists in the standard terms of the User Agreement for eBay. Those provisions envisage certified mediation by way of an “online dispute resolution process”.[24] An earlier form of eBay’s standard user terms encouraged users to contact eBay to “seek a resolution” and promoted alternatives to litigation. To this end, eBay would appear to be operating an AI-assisted ODR system, which is used for resolving high-volume, low-value consumer disputes arising from online transactions between its users (sellers and buyers). In 2010, eBay reported its AI-assisted platform resolved 60 million disputes.[25]
This fits with research work conducted by the Australian Dispute Centre in which the technology landscape for Australian dispute resolution practitioners was surveyed.[26] One anecdote flowing from that work that I found particularly interesting was a note of Graeme Grovum, Former Head of Innovation at Corrs Chambers Westgarth, who had remarked upon how clients often drive firms in Australia to venture into use of technology; and how clients tend to be more receptive to testing new technologies than their law firms are, and are occasionally frustrated by how their firms lag in terms of technological integration, suggesting that in-house teams may themselves increasingly be concerned with dispute resolution and ADR practice.[27] In other words, it may be businesses driving innovation in dispute resolution platforms rather than lawyers or government.
Contrasting with the account of eBay’s platform is Regulation (EU) 2024/3228 of European Union law, which recently repealed an earlier (2013) regulation that had directed consumer complaints about online sales and services to the European Online Dispute Resolution Platform. In contrast to eBay’s dispute resolution platform, the repeal of the EU platform was said to be due to “low consumer and trader usage”.[28]
What kinds of AI ADR platforms are currently active?
I will now turn to consider what kinds of more general AI-based alternative dispute resolution platforms are currently in operation for use in Australia.
I have not conducted a complete survey of all platforms available via public and private operators. I will outline several of the most commonly known.
RDO
Firstly, “RDO” – that is, “Resolve Disputes Online”, is a private international platform with an Australian base.
It uses the marketing catch-line: “Dispute Resolution. Reimagined”.[29] The RDO platform claims it “facilitates live or asynchronous mediations and arbitrations using intelligent workflows for more efficient resolutions”.
The details of how RDO’s platforms work in practice is not clear to me from its website. For example, it is not clear whether there is any human interface for “digital mediation”; its features appear to include secure file sharing, private communication, and the ability to conduct sessions remotely. It also offers a tool described as a “settlement builder”, which claims to allow parties to work together on the platform to construct and finalise their settlement agreement digitally.
The RDO platform appears to be a base from which private companies, public institutions (including courts), governments and higher education providers can harness the technology and adapt it to their particular needs and settings. For example, in 2021 RDO partnered with the Vietnam Government for a pilot project in ODR for small to medium size enterprises; interestingly it was funded by the Australian Government and managed by DT Global Australia (principally owned by a charitable trust).[30]
The vision for RDO appears to be rooted in the access to justice space. I cannot verify RDO’s claims but they state on their website:
Each year 1 billion people need basic justice care, and each of us can expect a legal problem which will have ‘a major negative impact’ on our lives every 7 years. This is a serious issue. Most (60%) problems are related to neighbours, employment, family, land and crime. And only 24% of legal problems that people have around the world ever get solved completely, with most of those solutions coming from a local or informal process.
Whether RDO will be as truly transformative to the legal profession and the courts as its website suggests is not yet known; however, it does seem to be a platform of substance from which new online alternative dispute resolution tools are emerging.
amica[31]
The “amica” platform is a free online ADR tool operating in the arena of family law. I expect it will be familiar to those of you who practice in family law.
It is especially designed to assist separating couples reach agreements on financial arrangements. It (amica) is a completely online service, designed for both desktop computers and mobile phones. The amica “app” can be downloaded to a smart phone or device. The parties sign up to amica once they have determined it is suitable for them. It uses AI to analyse the circumstances of the separating couple, compare them to similar cases and suggests resolutions based on how courts typically determine such disputes. Once an agreement is reached, amica can be used to help separating couples to formalise their agreement, for example, by producing an application for property consent orders.
According to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, amica was launched in June 2020 as an initiative of National Legal Aid and the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, with funding from the Attorney-General’s Department. It claims to use “smart technology” to “make separating simpler”. The platform also provides support to separating couples to negotiate and reach agreements about parenting arrangements and the division of property. The site provides family law information and links to existing information resources and referral services in each state and territory, including family counselling and legal assistance services.
Smartsettle
Smartsettle is the most radical of the ODR or AI-assisted ADR platforms that I surveyed. It is a private ODR platform based in the United States and promotes itself as a digital venue for resolving disputes, including those related to real estate.
Some key features of Smartsettle, according to its website, include:
- The platform uses algorithms to assist parties in reaching agreements by analysing preferences and suggesting optimal solutions.
- It aims to streamline the dispute resolution process, reducing the time and costs associated with traditional methods.
- It allows parties to negotiate asynchronously.
- The platform claims to employ tools to ensure that settlements are fair and mutually beneficial, focusing on maximising satisfaction for all parties involved.
Interestingly, a recent paper published in the Computer Law and Security Review promotes a similar online dispute resolution and AI concept for land and property disputes in Victoria.[32] It seems I have (accidentally) touched on the topic of “fencing disputes” that I told you at the outset I was not going to be talking about! The authors of that article notably state:[33]
In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the use of ODR with Artificial Intelligence (AI). Development of ODR with AI harnesses extensive data to create algorithms capable of predicting outcomes and facilitating decision-making processes to a degree far beyond the capabilities of a human mediator in real time.
Other platforms are in use internationally.
In the United States, Modria is a customisable ODR platform available to US and international courts run by Tyler Technologies; it calls itself the “world’s most successful online dispute resolution platform”, underpinning the ODR platform used by eBay which I have already mentioned. It provides parties with a diagnosis of their dispute and the likely process for resolution, helping them to decide whether to proceed with their case.[34] If they do proceed, the platform collects information and opens a web chat between the parties to facilitate a resolution. Either party can request that the dispute be escalated to a mediator or arbitrator. The dispute resolution process can be tailored to different types of disputes, from simple debt cases to complicated child custody cases. According to its website, Modria has resolved more than one million disputes around the world and claims to resolve cases in half the time taken by traditional processes.[35]
As I touched on earlier, there is also Arbitrus.ai which is touted as the first “AI-Court” with “non-human judges”, though its rules do appear to envisage some scope for human interface in checking decisions and where internal disputes arise. Its rules engage directly with the consequences for “general hallucinations” and also purport to deal with lack of completeness and an issue of “groundedness” in its outputs; apparently recognising the current hazards of reliance on AI. Some of the analysis given in these rules is interesting in its attempt to grapple with these new issues.[36]
Conclusion
The fast-looming issue that will confront Australian governments, including the courts – and the Australian Disputes Centre, is whether to act boldly, to embrace this new technology; to accept that it exists, and to take an active role to shape its management and its boundaries.
Some of us will be haunted by the warnings of former High Court Chief Justices concerning the erosion of the rule of law by the growing encroachment of alternative dispute resolution.[37]
There is also, quite understandably, a genuine fear by many of us about the shortcomings of AI: its hallucinations, the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation and the risks to privacy.
In my view, these are not reasons to reject or ignore AI as a mechanism for assisting dispute resolution. The current generation of law students and those that follow them will be much more relaxed about using AI-based technologies and dealing with its shortcomings.
Like the latest iPhone 17 Pro – you might wish to think of AI-assisted ADR or ODR as the latest generation of ADR – perhaps the “ADR 3 -AI-Pro” or perhaps you would prefer to dub it: “Chris” or “Deb”?
I think there is an obvious role for Gen-AI ODR platforms to be implemented for the resolution of minor civil disputes where there is high volume and an imperative to ensure they are dealt with cost-efficiently. What is less clear is the extent to which Gen-AI ODR platforms might be adapted to high-value complex litigation, including representative class action disputes and regulatory enforcement proceedings. The delays and costs with this kind of litigation frequently mar the civil justice system and its courts and diminish public perceptions of us. I think there is also a role for AI in this kind of large-scale litigation; not to remove the human elements or the in-person public courtroom, but potentially more time and cost efficiencies could be gained by endorsement of sophisticated AI technologies for voluminous document management by parties.
The legal profession and the courts are well placed to guide reforms that not only consider the adoption of technology developed in a for-profit commercial sphere but that also has proper regard for the legal requirements of procedural fairness, accommodating appropriate evidentiary and procedural rules that have shaped our civil justice system.
Some of you may be aware of Australia’s Artificial Intelligence Ethics Principles first published in 2019 and updated late last year.[38] These principles are part of the Australian Government’s commitment to make Australia a global leader in responsible and inclusive AI; so that people can trust it is safe, secure and reliable. Under the banner of these principles, late last month, “Guidance for AI Adoption” was published outlining six essential practices for safe and responsible AI governance. The guide is said to support organisations to take proactive steps to identify the risk of harms posed by AI systems which they develop, deploy or rely on.[39] Significantly, the guidance recommends maintaining human control, with meaningful human oversight with “human override points”. I suggest this may be a good starting place for consideration of what measures might be necessary or desirable for considering any regulation of Gen-AI ADR platforms.[40]
As Chief Justice Gageler said in his presentation last Friday: “in the uncertain meantime, the Australian Judicature has no option but to engage!”
Thank-you.
_____________________________
[1] Samuel D Hodge Jr., Revolutionizing Justice: Unleashing the Power of Artificial Intelligence,(2023) SMU Science and Technology Law Review, 26(2) (Article 3).
[2] See the article by Narelle Morris, Current Approaches to the Use of Generative AI in Australian Courts and Tribunals: Should Australian Judges Have Guidelines Too?, (2025) 34 JJA 1; and Legal Studies Research Paper by Andrew Ray and Heather Roberts, AI-Assisted Judges? Practical and ethical risks and the need for court-authored guidelines, (2025) (approved for publication in the Australian Law Journal in 2026).
[3] Compare Supreme Court of New South Wales, “Practice Note SC Gen 23” (28 January 2025), Supreme Court of Victoria, “Guidelines for Litigants: Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Litigation” (6 May 2024), Federal Court of Australia, “Notice to the Profession: Artificial Intelligence Use in the Federal Court of Australia” (29 April 2025); Supreme Court of Queensland, “The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers” (revised 15 September 2025); Supreme Court of Queensland, “Accuracy of References in Submissions” (24 September 2025).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] However, note the recent remarks of Chief Justice Gageler at the Australian Legal Convention (21 November 2025) that the courts have reached an “unsustainable phase” of AI use in litigation, requiring magistrates to act “as human filters and human adjudicators of competing machine-generated or machine-enhanced arguments”.
[7] Chief Justice Stephen Gageler, The State of the Australian Judicature in 2025, Australian Legal Convention (2025), High Court, Canberra (21 November 2025).
[8] See note 2.
[9] A Statement from the Honourable Chris Kourakis, Chief Justice of South Australia launching a survey about the use of Generative AI in the South Australian courts (30 May 2025).
[10] As to the definition of “mediation”, see Cook v Taing [2014] VSC 428.
[11] Artbitrus templates https://www.arbitrus.ai/templates.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Sourdin T, Li B, Burke A, Just, quick and cheap? Civil dispute resolution and technology (2019) 19 MqLR 17.
[14] Justice Melissa Perry “What do judicial officers need to know about the risks of AI? (Annual Conference of the Australian Law Librarians’ Association, 9 August 2024, Adelaide).
[15] Ibid, citing: Australian Government, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, The Bletchley Declaration by Countries Attending the AI Safety Summit, 1-2 November 2023.
[16] Huddart Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorhead (1909) 8 CLR 330 at 357 (Griffiths CJ).
[17] Chief Justice Robert French AC, Essential and Defining Characteristics of Courts in an Age of Institutional Change, Supreme and Federal Court Judges Conference (21 January 2013).
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Productivity Commission, Access to Justice Arrangements (Inquiry Report No 72, 5 September 2014).
[21] See Chapter 11 (Resolution), UCR 2020.
[22] This is an attempt at a humorous reference to the rogue sentient super computer, known as HAL 9000, in Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 science fiction film, 2001: A Space Odyssy.
[23] Similarly, this is a reference to the action-science fiction series of the “Terminator” franchise of films starring Arnold Schwarznegger as a cyborg assassin from the future. Perhaps the second of the movies, Terminator 2: Judgment Day is most apt!
[24] Ebay, User Agreement – Clause 24 (Web Page) <https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-agreement>.
[25] Fox Mandal, Online Dispute Resolution: A Game Changer, Lexology (Web Page) <(https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1c265ccb-81a1-4121-9b98-b305fffc8a9f)>.
[26] Soriano A, Technology and dispute resolution: contemporary developments (Web Page) <(https://disputescentre.com.au/technology-and-dispute-resolution-contemporary-developments/)>.
[27] Ibid; citing Graeme Grovum, ‘Corrs Chambers Westgarth: Artificial Intelligence and the Law’ (Speech delivered at the Sydney Law School, Sydney Law School Law Foyer, 18 April 2018).
[28] Two Birds, The End of the European Online Dispute Resolution Platform, (Web Page) <https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/global/the-end-of-the-european-online-dispute-resolution-platform>.
[29] Resolved Disputes, Index, (Web Page) <https://resolvedisputes.online/index.html>.
[30] DT Global, Who We Are, (Web Page) <https://dt-global.com/who-we-are/#:~:text=DT%20Global’s%20values%20include:%20*%20Integrity%20*,Collaboration%20across%20continents%2C%20industries%2C%20and%20technical%20areas>.
[31] The word “amica” is also a Latin expression meaning female friend.
[32] Fahimeh Abedi, Abbas Rajabifard, Shojaei Davood, ‘Enhancing access to justice for land and property disputes through online dispute resolution and artificial intelligence’, (2025) Computer 59 Law & Security Review 106194.
[33] Ibid page 5.
[34] Tyler Technologies, Modria, (Web Page) < https://www.tylertech.com/solutionsproducts/modria/ODR>.
[35] Ibid.
[36] See note 10.
[37] Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, The Future of Civil Justice – Adjudication or Dispute Resolution? (Paper presented at the Australian Law Teachers Association Conference, Dunedin, 7 July 1988). Published in (1999) 9 Otago Law Review 449, 455.
[38] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Guidance for AI Adoption, (Web Page) <https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/guidance-for-ai-adoption>.
[39] Ibid.
[40] For legal practitioners, I note that the publication also offers guidance to professionals who are new to AI and AI governance and those who are looking for general guidance on best practice when using AI in business contexts.