Lot owners, renters and body corporates have been put on notice after an adjudicator made the rare decision to award costs because of a flawed AI-assisted dispute application.The decision in favour of a Brisbane body corporate highlights the growing risk of relying on AI-assisted dispute applications lodged with the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management (BCCM).A lot owner who relied on AI has had a rude awakening during a dispute.In this instance, the lot owner lodged a dispute application to have the Brisbane body corporate held financially responsible for compensation and repairs following water damage from a blocked or damaged airconditioner drain.During the assessment stage, the applicant acknowledged they had used AI to assist their submission but only with grammar and document structure.They also claimed information generated through ‘digital assistance’ was independently checked and that mis-cited or incomplete references to case law were unintentional.Jane Wilson is the Body Corporate Commissioner for Queensland.The adjudicator determined the application was ‘frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance’ after the applicant did not provide copies of documentation or the case law they had cited.The order concluded that “the continual reliance on non-existent or irrelevant case law and legislative provisions, and incorrect or unsubstantiated claims about the submitted evidence, has impeded the determination of this application”.“It has certainly required more time for me to investigate the application, and it undoubtedly increased the costs for the body corporate to respond to the application.”There is growing outrage over AI worldwide. Picture: Heather Diehl / GETTY IMAGESGiven the nature of the material submitted by the applicant, the adjudicator concluded that an award of $2,000 in costs was warranted, the maximum costs order permitted under BCCM legislation.Anyone lodging a dispute can use AI to assist with presenting their case, but they should dig deeper and undertake additional research to test the accuracy of the generated content.Often, when seeking an AI response, a link or reference will be provided for the source of the information.Applicants must thoroughly review these sources before committing them to a dispute application and they should refer to the most accurate and up-to-date information on the BCCM webpages.As for a body corporate being responsible for the ingress of water from an air conditioner drainage pipe that only services one lot, this is almost always the lot owner’s responsibility.The drainage pipe was not on common property and is not in itself common property.It is utility infrastructure that the applicant was inherently responsible for – a crucial detail for owners to keep in mind.Maintenance tops the list of disputes seen by BCCM. Picture: Jayce BarkerMaintenance disputes were the number one issue for BCCM adjudicators in 2025/26, with 354 applications, making up 19.3 per cent of all disputes lodged.Matters involving improvements by an owner were second with 195 lodgements (10.63 per cent), while general meeting motions were third with 189 dispute lodgements (10.31 per cent).To help clarify whether a body corporate or an owner is responsible for the maintenance of utility infrastructure within a community titles scheme, information can be found on the BCCM website. The website also contains guides and tutorials on resolving disputes and lodging dispute applications.TOP 5 Dispute matters 2025/26Maintenance354 applications; 19.3pc of disputes lodgedImprovements – owners195 applications; 10.63pc of disputes lodgedGeneral meetings – motions189 applications; 10.31pc of disputes lodgedOther/miscellaneous117 applications; 6.38pc of disputes lodgedBy-laws – other111 applications; 6.05pc of disputes lodged(Source: BCCM)**Jane Wilson is Queensland’s body corporate commissioner