Ad/Marketing Communication
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law.
As I have been looking at how AI has integrated into Australian court practices, I came across this notable reference in the Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in Youssef v Eckersley & Anor [2024] QSC 35,
Case Overview
The case involved a motorbike rider who sustained injuries following a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant. Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, the insurer, admitted liability for the accident. The central issue before the court concerned the assessment of damages, specifically regarding the extent of the injuries and their impact on his earning capacity.
The vehicle drivers was a Doctor of Philosophy and had a professional history in teaching from 2007 until 2016. However, his teaching registration lapsed in December 2017. He claimed the accident caused head injuries, cervical spine injuries, facial injuries, and a psychiatric condition diagnosed as depressive disorder. The insurer disputed parts of his claim, notably questioning the existence of post-concussive syndrome and the causal connection between the accident and his psychiatric condition.
In her judgment delivered on 15 March 2024, Justice Wilson awarded $85,466.56 in damages. She accepted the physical injuries but concluded that the psychiatric condition was not accident-related. The award covered general damages, past economic loss, interest, and associated superannuation losses.
AI’s Role in the Proceedings
A distinctive feature of this case was the plaintiff’s employment of AI in preparing his submissions. Specifically, he used ChatGPT, an AI language model, to assist in structuring and refining his arguments. Justice Wilson explicitly acknowledged this:
“The plaintiff’s submissions have been prepared with the assistance of the artificial intelligence platform ChatGPT. The plaintiff vouched for the accuracy of his submissions but stated that this platform assisted in their organisational structure and added a flourish to his submissions.”
Comment
The court’s reference to ChatGPT, though brief and arguably tangential to the core legal issues, is notable. The Judge’s decision to include this acknowledgment within the formal judgment underscores a growing judicial awareness that AI tools are becoming integrated into case preparation, even in superior courts. This reference, while primarily documenting the plaintiff’s statement, suggests an emerging recognition and tacit acceptance of AI’s evolving role in legal practice.
