Can you base a legal argument on something you can’t fully understand?
Can you rely on something you know may be inaccurate? Can a court decide a case not fully understanding the evidence or knowing it may be inaccurate?
That’s the quiet conundrum courts are beginning to face with machine translation.
As legal systems increasingly encounter foreign-language evidence, and as machine translation tools creep into everyday use, we’re starting to see these tools referenced in English judgments. The attitudes of the courts are revealing, and at times, contradictory.
I reviewed recent case law* and one overarching pattern emerges: courts are pragmatic. They’ll accept a machine translation when nothing else is available. But they are also cautious, sometimes sceptical, yet rarely confident in what the technology produces.
In Apparel Fzco v Iqbal, Armeniakou v Thomson, and Eli Lilly v Genentech, the courts accepted machine-translated documents without much critique. These cases read as if the translation simply passed under the radar. A quiet admission into evidence without comment or concern. Not an endorsement, but certainly not a red flag either.
Contrast that with Joyvio Group v Quiroga Moreno and Abbott v Dexcom. Here, the courts acknowledged that MT has some utility but were careful to limit how much weight they gave it. Machine translation might help orient the reader. But when it comes to deciding rights, obligations, or liabilities, it’s background noise. Certainly not the main soundtrack.
And then there are cases like Secretary of State v LJ Fairburn & Son Ltd and El-Tawil v Comptroller General of Patents, where the courts do raise eyebrows.
“Somewhat erratic”
“Odd English”
“Not easy to follow”
“Doubtful translation“
These aren’t throwaway remarks.
They are judicial shorthand for “this isn’t reliable”, yet the judgments often stop there.
The concern is voiced, the translation doubted, but rarely interrogated in depth.
What emerges is a telling judicial inconsistency. Some judges treat MT as good enough. Others barely trust it to parse a sentence. And across the board, there is little examination of how translations are produced, who produces them, and how meaning might shift in the process.
This mirrors the findings Juliette Scott and I outlined in “Translation in Libel Cases: Reputations at Stake!”**.
Judicial approaches to translation vary not just across jurisdictions, but within them. Some courts scrutinise every nuance. Others assume equivalence where none exists.
The role of the translator is often invisible. The status of machine-generated text, undefined.
That matters.
Because legal texts are not just linguistic artefacts. They carry implications; they have legal effects. Meaning isn’t surface-level.
Machine systems don’t understand legal context. They don’t parse ambiguity. They don’t recognise subtext or intent.
They pattern-match.
And when the outcome of a case hinges on meaning, that’s not enough.
If judges are flagging the limitations of MT, lawyers should take note.
So what does this mean for legal practice?
Don’t walk into court with a rough idea of what the document says. Don’t submit a translation just because it’s fast, or free. Don’t assume the judge will catch and correct an error in a language they don’t speak.
Because in law, words aren’t just words. They’re tools. And sometimes, they’re weapons.
I think the overall message that emerges from these cases can be summarised as machine translation is merely a tool that is sometimes useful.
It might help orient the reader. It might support a rough understanding. But for anything beyond that, particularly where legal rights hang in the balance, it is no substitute for a trained legal translator.
Or to put it more bluntly: if your client’s liberty, liability, or livelihood is on the line, do you really want the judge in your case relying on a “somewhat erratic” translation?
No one reads a legal document as closely as a legal translator. Machines don’t come close.
If you’re litigating cross-border matters, or dealing with foreign judgments, pleadings, or scientific evidence, don’t settle for a “rough idea.” Insist on a version that is clear, legally accurate, and fit for purpose. Get the right translation. Get the right translator.
If you need a legal document in the Greek< >English combination feel free to reach out to us at JURTRANS TRANSLATIONS LTD.
#LegalTranslation #MachineTranslation #AccessToJustice #RuleOfLaw
*To identify the case I used “machine translation” as a search term in an online database of English case law.
** https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/cl/article/download/31723/29787/73271
νομική μετάφραση
