AI puts cross-border enforcement at risk, Master of the Rolls warns

The Master of the Rolls has warned that cross-border enforcement (the process of getting a court judgment recognised and applied in another jurisdiction) is at risk because of artificial intelligence. The warning comes from the head of the civil judiciary of England and Wales, one of the most senior judicial offices in the jurisdiction, whose remarks were reported by The Law Society Gazette.

The headline finding is stark. A judicial figure who supervises the Court of Appeal and much of the civil justice system believes AI threatens a mechanism that commerce depends on. Enforcement across borders is how a judgment won in London gets honoured in Frankfurt or New York. If that breaks down, litigation outcomes lose their value.

Who raised the alarm?

The Master of the Rolls is the second most senior judge in England and Wales. The officeholder oversees the civil division of the Court of Appeal and chairs the Civil Justice Council. When this office speaks on enforcement, practitioners listen. The warning was directed at the legal profession through the Gazette, the Law Society's own publication.

The concern isn't abstract. Courts and regulators across jurisdictions are already wrestling with AI-generated evidence, synthetic documents, and deepfaked material. Each of these can undermine the factual foundation a foreign court relies on before it will enforce a sister judgment.

Why does AI threaten enforcement?

Cross-border enforcement rests on trust. A court asked to enforce a foreign judgment must trust the integrity of the record, the authenticity of the documents, and the honesty of the process behind it. AI erodes each pillar.

Think of enforcement as a chain of custody for money. If any link — a signed contract, a witness statement, an affidavit — can be fabricated convincingly by a machine, the receiving court can no longer verify what it is enforcing. That hesitation slows everything down. It invites challenge. It raises cost.

The practical mechanics matter here:

• Authentication gets harder. Courts use document examination to verify evidence. Generative AI produces documents that pass casual inspection. -- Challenges multiply. Judgment debtors gain a new line of attack: claim the record is AI-contaminated and resist enforcement.
• Costs rise. More disputes over authenticity mean more expert evidence, more hearings, longer timelines.

What does the warning mean for practitioners?

Litigators should expect stricter scrutiny of documentary evidence in enforcement proceedings, both domestically and abroad. The warning signals judicial sensitivity to the issue. Courts may demand more robust certification, chain-of-evidence documentation, or sworn verification of materials supporting enforcement applications.

Practitioners handling judgments intended for use overseas should act now:

• Document provenance of key evidence at the point of collection.
• Certify and preserve original records before proceedings begin.
• Anticipate authenticity challenges when drafting enforcement strategy.
• Advise clients that AI-generated material, if relied on, may attract judicial scepticism at the enforcement stage.

The warning also carries institutional weight. The Master of the Rolls did not frame this as a future problem. The Gazette report uses the present tense — enforcement is 'at risk'. That framing suggests the judiciary sees current pressure, not a distant hypothetical.

What comes next?

Judicial warnings of this kind often precede procedural guidance. The civil courts of England and Wales have already issued practice directions on AI use in litigation, requiring lawyers to confirm that AI has not compromised their filings. Enforcement practice may be the next area to receive explicit rules.

For now, the profession has a clear signal from the top of the civil judiciary. AI is changing what courts can take at face value. Cross-border enforcement depends on exactly that kind of trust. The two facts sit uneasily together, and the Master of the Rolls has said so publicly.