The Fair Work Commission is increasingly taking a dim view of the use of artificial intelligence tools to conduct cases; thus
“Application to correct, vary or revoke decision – section 602 – section 603 – unreasonable reliance on generative artificial intelligence – request for matter to be reallocated – application refused – application to correct obvious error in relation to Full Bench decision refusing permission to appeal- no relevant error established – alternative application to revoke decision- no basis to revoke – application refused.
[1]
Mr Zain Anwar is part of an increasing trend of applicants misusing generative artificial intelligence (AI) to run their cases before the Commission. These applicants submit AI prepared documents such as applications, communications, submissions and witness statements without revision. There is a problem with parties taking this approach, generative AI is merely a tool. It is not capable of making the type of decisions required to effectively conduct litigation. Human judgment is called for. In Mr Anwar’s case AI generated pages and pages of emails and other documents that served only to obscure his claims. Mr Anwar expected leniency from the Commission as he was unrepresented. In the ordinary course the Commission will accommodate unrepresented litigants. In Mr Anwar’s case the Commission has made accommodation by sifting through his voluminous material to identify his complaints and address them.
[2]
The Commission has commented on the pitfalls of the use of AI in a number of recent decisions, including where case references have been made up1, filed material has been lengthy and repetitive2, and the party has relied on guidance that was wrong or on material that they did not understand3. Mr Anwar, and others who choose to use AI to run their litigation, should be aware that they are not served well by using AI in this way. The Commission has developed a practice note to guide litigants in the use of AI. The Commission’s role is to act fairly and justly. It is required to exercise its functions quickly, informally, avoid unnecessary technicalities, be open and transparent, and promote harmonious and cooperative workplaces4. The unconstrained use of AI by parties causes delay, wastes resources and does not assist the Commission to get to the heart of matters and effectively perform its role in the manner intended by the legislation. Parties using AI, such as Mr Anwar, should be conscious of this.
[2026] FWCFB 142
DECISION
[2026] FWCFB 142
2
[3] Mr Anwar was deactivated from the uber digital labour platform on 21 September 2025.
He was deactivated for four incidents of misconduct arising from his dealings with customers.
He made an application to the Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy under s. 536LU
of the Fair Work Act 2009. It was found that he was not unfairly deactivated and his application
was dismissed5. An appeal, for which permission to appeal was required, was lodged against
that decision. Permission to appeal was refused6.
[4] Within hours of the decision refusing permission to appeal Mr Anwar began sending
lengthy emails to the Commission complaining about the decision. He was asked to refrain
from sending emails – a request he ignored. He sent many more emails. It is clear that his emails
were drafted by AI. It appears they were sent without proper review by Mr Anwar. They are,
by and large, incoherent. Parties should not correspond with the Commission in this manner.
Communications with the Commission should be in accordance with directions issued in a
matter, in compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2024, and in accordance with the
Commission’s practice notes.
[5] Amongst the communications from Mr Anwar was a Form F1 which was ostensibly in
accordance with the Rules. The Form F1 makes application that the decision refusing
permission to appeal be corrected under s. 602 of the Act, or alternatively that the decision be
varied or revoked under s. 603. A later email attached a Form F48, styled as an application for
directions on procedure. The form seeks a number of directions be made. They relate to the
manner in which the record before the Commission was compiled both at the hearing at first
instance and on the appeal. The directions sought by Mr Anwar are largely unintelligible. The
grounds in support are equally incoherent. We do not propose to make any directions in
response to this application. The Form F48 application does make a request that consideration
of the ss 602 and 603 applications be allocated to a person other than this Full Bench, as we
made the decision to refuse permission to appeal. We regard that as a request that the matter be
reallocated which may only happen if we recuse ourselves.
[6] The test for recusal is the test enunciated by the High Court of Australia in Ebner v
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337. It is whether a fair‑minded lay
observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision‑maker might not bring an impartial and
unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question.
[7] Mr Anwar has not established any basis upon which a fair-minded lay observer might
apprehend that this bench would not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution
of his current applications. The fact that we decided the matter the subject of the s. 602 and s.
603 applications is not sufficient. We have decided not to recuse ourselves.
[8] Mr Anwar’s applications under s. 602 and 603 are to have the permission to appeal
decision corrected, varied or revoked. It is based on his complaint that in paragraph [6] of the
decision the Full Bench denied his application to admit further evidence and in paragraph [9] it
decided that there was no error in the first instance decision. Section 602 of the Act constitutes
what is known as a slip rule. It permits the Commission to correct or amend any obvious error,
defect or irregularity, whether in substance or form, in relation to a decision. Mr Anwar has not
identified any obvious errors that enliven the discretion in s. 602 and that application is rejected.
It is not enough that Mr Anwar disagrees with the decision.
[2026] FWCFB 142
3
[9] Section 603 provides the Commission with a broader power.7 The power under s. 603
has generally been used where there has been a change of circumstances such as to warrant the
variation or revocation of the original decision, or, where the initial decision was based on
incomplete or false information.
[10] Mr Anwar complains that the effect of paragraphs [6] and [9] in our earlier decision is
that the Commission has refused to include on the record all of the material that he claims was
relevant to his case and should have been considered on appeal. This complaint is not that there
was an error in the earlier decision arising from changed circumstances or incomplete record.
It is merely an attempt to re-agitate the same arguments that were considered by the Full Bench
in the earlier proceedings. For this reason, the application must fail and the application is
dismissed.
[11] Mr Anwar’s request that the Full Bench recuse itself is refused and his application under
s. 602 and 603 that the decision refusing him permission to appeal be corrected, varied or
revoked is dismissed.”
Anwar v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2026] FWCFB 142 delivered 19 June 2026 pr- Slevin DP, Grayson DP and Walkaden C