Fair Work Commission: AI-Generated Correspondence Can Make Body Corporate Disputes Worse

NATIONAL

Artificial Intelligence can draft a detailed letter in seconds, but does that make it effective? On 30 July 2026, the Fair Work Commission decided a dispute involving a body corporate committee and caretaker and delivered a timely warning about the risks of using AI to prepare correspondence in a dispute. The decision, together with recent body corporate adjudications involving costs orders, highlights how AI-generated communications can escalate conflict, obscure legitimate concerns, and hinder effective dispute resolution.

How can AI-generated emails affect a body corporate committee dispute?

The decision concerned the Sanctuary at Buderim CTS 40659 in Queensland. Mrs Deidre de Bruyn was a representative of the caretaker and had been involved in a long-running dispute with the body corporate committee concerning the scope of the caretaker’s duties and related matters. The contractual dispute had also been referred to the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management.

In De Bruyn AB2025/973, Commissioner McKinnon made a specific observation about correspondence sent by Mr de Bruyn, another representative of the caretaker, to the body corporate. The Commissioner stated:

“It is also necessary to make a general observation about the correspondence sent to Sanctuary by Mr de Bruyn. In my view, the correspondence was unhelpful. It appears to have been prepared with the use of an artificial intelligence tool. It is lengthy, wide-ranging, replete with generalisations, repetitive, and often couched in accusatory language. It is unsurprising that the Sanctuary Committee eventually chose not to engage with Mr de Bruyn in response.”

The observation is striking because the Commission did not simply criticise the use of AI as a matter of style. Rather, the problem was the effect the correspondence had on the dispute. The correspondence was considered so lengthy and repetitive, and so broadly and aggressively expressed, that the committee eventually chose not to engage with it. Importantly, the Commission found that this was ultimately detrimental to everyone involved because some of the concerns being raised were reasonable and ought to have been acknowledged and addressed.

What are the risks of AI-generated correspondence?

When an owner or committee member is involved in a dispute, there can be a temptation to prepare a comprehensive letter setting out every complaint, historical grievance and perceived inconsistency. AI makes it particularly easy to produce such a document. A short list of issues can quickly become many pages of polished prose. But length does not necessarily make correspondence more persuasive.

In a body corporate dispute, the recipient needs to be able to identify what the actual issue is, what is being requested and what response is required. If those points are buried beneath pages of background material, repetition and allegations, the correspondence may become counterproductive.

The Commissioner’s concern was not that every proposition made by Mr de Bruyn was wrong. To the contrary, the Commissioner expressly recognised that some of the concerns were reasonable and should have been addressed. The difficulty was that the manner in which those concerns were communicated contributed to the breakdown in communication.

Another risk of AI-generated correspondence is that it can produce language that sounds formal, comprehensive and confident. That can give the writer the impression that the document is persuasive simply because it is professionally worded. However, effective dispute correspondence requires judgment, not merely polished language.

AI can also encourage generalisation. Instead of dealing with a particular committee resolution or particular incident, correspondence may describe a broader pattern of “ongoing unreasonable conduct”, “systemic failures” or “persistent breaches”. Such language may obscure rather than clarify the actual dispute.

Why did the commission ban the use of AI in future correspondence between the parties?

The significance of the Decision is reinforced by the separate Order made by Commissioner McKinnon. Paragraph 1 of the Order provides that future communication between the parties is to be accurate and respectful, and expressly prohibits the use of artificial intelligence tools in preparing correspondence between the parties.

That is an unusually direct instruction.

The lesson for body corporate disputes is not necessarily that AI can never be used for any purpose. Rather, where parties are in a contentious relationship, correspondence needs to be carefully considered and genuinely responsive.

Body corporate disputes require particularly careful communication

Queensland body corporate disputes often involve multiple participants. A committee may comprise several owners. There may also be a body corporate manager, caretaker, letting agent, contractors and individual lot owners. Correspondence can subsequently become part of a committee record, an adjudication application, court proceedings or another formal process.

The Decision provides examples of how poor communication can compound an existing dispute. The Commission found, among other things, that certain information circulated to owners was inaccurate or incomplete, and that some concerns raised by Ms de Bruyn were not properly addressed. The Commission also identified failures to provide meaningful responses to certain complaints and concerns.

These examples demonstrate that there are two separate communication failures that can occur in a dispute: sending correspondence that is too extensive to be useful, and failing to respond meaningfully to correspondence that raises legitimate issues. Both can make resolution harder.

How can written communication be used more effectively?

Before sending correspondence, identify the precise issue. State the relevant facts briefly. Identify the decision, conduct or event that is disputed. Explain the evidence relied upon. State what outcome is sought. If a response is required, ask a clear question and provide a reasonable timeframe.

For example, instead of sending a lengthy letter alleging a committee has repeatedly acted improperly, an owner might identify three specific committee decisions, explain why each is disputed, attach the relevant documents and ask the committee to reconsider each decision.

Similarly, a committee responding to an owner should address the actual questions raised rather than responding with a general rejection of the owner’s position.

Summary

The De Bruyn decision is a further useful warning for anyone involved in a Queensland body corporate dispute. The Fair Work Commission highlight the risks of overreliance on AI-generated correspondence in body corporate disputes. Even where concerns are legitimate, lengthy and accusatory communications can undermine effective engagement.

If you are involved in a dispute involving excessive AI-generated correspondence, contact our team on 1300 144 436 for guidance.

Written by Brendan Pitman, Partner, Grace Lawyers QLD

Last updated on 26 August 2026