One of the major questions facing our society today is whether artificial intelligence AI can — or should — take on roles traditionally performed by humans. Recently, I had a deeply disappointing experience in the Planning & Environment Court. It left me with a simple but confronting question:- Would I have received a more appropriate outcome if the decision had been made by an AI instead of a human judge?

That question led me to investigate whether, even at this early stage of its development, AI has the capacity to reason responsibly, apply law consistently, and avoid the human errors that affected my case. This website provides all the material — the documents, the submissions, the decisions, and the reasoning — so that you can conduct your own case study.

So: U B Judge:. Would our society be better served if AI, rather than humans, decided certain matters of law?

In February 2024 I became involved with a property development in Tuan, a small fishing village located in the Great Sandy Strait in south east Queensland. The development application had been lodged in December 2021, and as the process had stalled, the property owners sought my assistance in moving it forward.

Prior to my retirement in 2009, I had operated a consultancy business for 15 years, providing services to clients dealing with local governments on a wide range of development related matters. That work was built on a career that began in 1966, during which I held various roles in local government involving environmental management, building certification, land use planning, property development, and development assessment control.

Across those decades, I observed that development assessment processes adopted by regulatory authorities were often inconsistent with relevant legislation, and applicants could be disadvantaged when personal opinion based administrative decisions were applied rigidly or without clear reference to statutory requirements or science.

My consultancy workwas aimed at helping clients navigate these situations and find practical, lawful solutions.

By January 2025 development approval for the the Tuan project was issued. However, as is common, the approval contained a long list of conditions, many of which my clients considered irrelevant or inappropriate. Attempts to negotiate amendments with the local Council were unsuccessful, and the matter proceeded to an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court.

Two mediation sessions followed — the first involving both SARA and the Fraser Coast Regional Council, and the second involving SARA alone. Subsequent negotiations resulted in a consent order in October 2025 .

At the time the development approval was issued, Council also issued an Infrastructure Charges Notice requiring a contribution of $52,000 toward future trunk infrastructure.

My review of the legislative framework and the Charges Resolution revealed several anomalies in both interpretation and drafting. Representations were made to Council, but no remedy was offered, and an appeal was lodged with the Queensland Development Tribunal in April 2025.

The Tribunal decided the appeal in November 2025, supporting Council’s position and dismissing the issues I had raised.

As a result, an appeal was lodged in the Planning and Environment Court, on 1 December 2025 seeking review of the legal basis for the Tribunal’s decision.

The law clearly provides that an appeal of this nature is restricted solely to questions of the law underpinning the decision-making process. Matters of fact or process are not relevant unless they reveal an error in the interpretation and or the application of the law. [Ref]

On 21 February 2025, Fraser Coast Regional Council (Council) issued Infrastructure Charges Notice No. 5138178 (ICN) in relation to Development Approval RAL21/0138 for the reconfiguration of Lot 51 MCH567, Wilkinson Road, Tuan QLD.

On 9 April 2025, a formal representation was made to Council identifying several issues that appeared to have been overlooked in the decision to issue the ICN.

On 17 June 2025, Council responded, rejecting all issues raised and confirming its original decision of 21 February 2025.

On 14 July 2025, the recipient of the ICN lodged an appeal with the Queensland Development Tribunal (Tribunal), supported by three written submissions.

On 19 August 2025, the Tribunal conducted an online hearing.

On 6 November 2025, the Tribunal delivered its decision, upholding the lawfulness of the ICN issued on 21 February 2025.

On 1 December 2025, the recipient of the ICN filed an appeal in the Queensland Planning and Environment Court (P&E Court), proceeding No. 129/25.

On 26 March 2026, the P&E Court conducted a hearing at Maroochydore, after which the judge reserved the decision.

On 5 May 2026, judgment was delivered, again upholding the lawfulness of the ICN and awarding costs against the appellant.

For readers who wish to review the complete set of documents and submissions associated with this case, the full material is available at: Tuanqld.com/dt/dt.html

Contains all material relevant to the determination

Copilot; Chat GTP; Claude; Gemini; Deep Seek;

more text here

more text here