This article is about the Sky Gardens [2025] decision and how flawed AI-assisted submissions led to the application being dismissed and costs awarded.
Adjudicator’s Order – Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373
This adjudicator’s decision is particularly interesting because the adjudicator addressed the problems which arise when parties rely too heavily on AI to generate their submissions.
The application concerned the responsibility for maintaining an air conditioning condensate drain, with the applicant lot owner seeking repairs and compensation. However, the application was dismissed on the basis that it was misconceived and without substance. The adjudicator then considered the body corporate’s claim for costs. The adjudicator stated at paragraphs [57] and [59]:
I acknowledge that maintenance responsibilities in a community titles scheme can be complicated at times. But in this case the application was entirely misconceived.
The application was presented in a confusing and repetitive manner. The grounds include numerous assertions about the nature and cause of the leak and damage, and statements made by others, that were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The applicant cites quotes and reports that do not appear to exist or, if they do, the applicant has not produced them despite my requests… The applicant cited incorrect or irrelevant provisions of the legislation on numerous occasions throughout the application, and mischaracterised those that were relevant. The applicant cited cases as precedent for various propositions, but those cases either do not exist or have little or no relevance to this dispute.
The adjudicator noted guidelines produced by the Queensland Courts on the use of generative AI by non-lawyers and that AI can make up cases, citations, and quotes; or put it simply, AI will often ‘hallucinate’ non-existent law.
When queried by the adjudicator , the applicant said they had used AI tools to assist with grammar and document structure only, and that all information, legal references, and technical evidence were obtained from verified sources and checked. The adjudicator said at paragraph [67]:
If the applicant used AI or other sources in preparing the material they submitted, I am not satisfied they checked the accuracy of the information obtained. If the applicant has not relied on AI for the contents of the submitted material, then they do not even have even that excuse for the innumerable errors and misrepresentations in the application and those persisting in the reply to submissions and in the response to my queries.
The adjudicator noted the body corporate had been put to considerable expense in responding to the application and the resources of the Commissioner’s office had been wasted. The adjudicator ordered the applicant to pay the body corporate’s costs up to the allowable maximum of $2,000.
Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management P: Information Service Freecall 1800 060 119
This post appears in Strata News #780.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read next:
- QLD: Q&A Boundary and Common Property Issues
- QLD: Steps to take for non-compliance with maintenance obligations
- QLD: Q&A Body corporate, tradespeople and contracts?
This article has been republished with permission from the author and first appeared on the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management website.
Visit our Maintenance and Common Property, Strata By-Laws and Legislation OR Strata Legislation QLD.
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.