Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia - [2025] QCAT 96

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia[2025] QCAT 96

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia[2025] QCAT 96

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

PARTIES:

LJY

(applicant)

v

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR011-25

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 March 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

  1. 1.
    Until further order of the Tribunal, the decision of the Occupational Therapy Board of Australia made on 3 December 2024 to impose conditions on Ms LJY’s registration is stayed.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

  1. 2.
    Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), publication of:
  1. the contents of a document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
  2. evidence given before the Tribunal;
  3. any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal;

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the patient, the patient’s family and the applicant save as provided for by the terms of this order and save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings, or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings, and for the respondent or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to exercise each of their statutory functions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

  1. 3.
    Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by:
  1. a judicial member;
  2. a tribunal member;
    1. (c)
      an associate to a judicial officer or tribunal member appointed under relevant legislation;
    1. (d)
      any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal;
    1. (e)
      the staff of the Tribunal registry;
    1. (f)
      any judicial officer, court staff or associate dealing with any appeal or review arising from these proceedings; or
    1. (g)
      the parties to these proceedings or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS   –   QUEENSLAND   CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the respondent Board imposes conditions on the applicant’s registration – where the applicant seeks a stay of the Board’s decision to impose conditions on her registration – where the applicant contends the Board’s decision was legally unreasonable, procedurally deficient and inconsistent with her appeal rights – where there may be use of Generative AI in submissions by a party – where the Tribunal makes a non- publication order on its own initiative – whether the stay should be granted

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Queensland Courts: The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non- Lawyers

Asinas v Medical Board of Australia [2020] QCAT 490

Bay v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2024] QCSC 315

Dr Choo-Tian Lee v Medical Board of Australia [2016] QCAT 23

Ha v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 91

Magill v Queensland Law Society Inc [2019] QCAT 392

Medical Board of Australia v Ong [2016] QCAT 54

Pluta v Medical Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 212

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONSFOR DECISION

What the applicant seeks

  1. [1]
    Ms LJY, an occupational therapist, seeks a stay of conditions imposed on her registration by the Occupational Therapy Board of Australia (‘Board’). This is pending the determination of her application to review the Board’s decision to impose conditions on her registration pursuant to s 178(2)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’). Ms LJY represents herself.
  2. [2]
    The Board has imposed conditions on Ms LJY’s registration under ss 178 and 179 of the National Law by a decision dated 3 December 2024 and advised Ms LJY by letter dated 10 December 2024 (‘Decision’). It did this because, the Decision says, it has formed a reasonable belief that the way Ms LJY practises the profession is or may be unsatisfactory.
  3. [3]
    The conditions require Ms LJY to:
    1. Complete one on one education with an approved educator for a minimum of eight hours covering, for a minimum of two hours each, the topics of appropriately balanced and non-biased reporting, appropriate assessments of children, appropriate compliance with NDIS guidelines and processes and family sensitive and centred practice. Ms LJY is to comply with Ahpra’s protocol and to complete the requirements of this condition within six months from 3 December 2024;
    2. Be mentored by an approved mentor addressing the provision of recommendations for functional capacity assessment (‘FCA’) reports within scope of practice, the use of appropriate assessment tools for the provision of clinically accurate FCA reports and professional communication in report writing for a minimum of six sessions on a monthly basis with each session being one hour long. Ms LJY is to comply with Ahpra’s protocol and to complete the requirements of this condition within six months of completing the one on one education conditions.
  4. [4]
    The conditions have a review period of twelve months. They appear on the register. Whilst that review works its way to completion, Ms LJY seeks a stay of the Decision. Ms LJY filed an application on 17 February 2025 (‘Stay Application’).

What are the relevant factual circumstances?

  1. [5]
    Ms LJY is the sole director and sole practising therapist at her practice which is based in a regional centre in Far North Queensland. Ms LJY describes her practice as:[1] encompass[ing] extensive experience in paediatric and complex care, with a particular focus on conducting comprehensive functional capacity assessment within the NDIS framework.
  1. [6]
    Ms LJY has not filed an affidavit in support of the Stay Application. She has, however, filed a folder of material dated 21 December 2024.
  2. [7]
    The Decision was made after the Office of the Health Ombudsman was notified of a complaint from a parent concerning a functional capacity assessment report Ms LJY prepared about his child.

What is the Tribunal’s power to stay?

  1. [8]
    Section 22(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) confers a power to stay the operation of all or part of a reviewable decision which is the subject of a review application.
  2. [9]
    The Tribunal’s discretionary power is to be exercised only if the Tribunal considers it desirable to make such an order after it has had regard to:[2]
    1. the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of the order or the order not being made;
    2. any submission made to the Tribunal by the decision-maker for the reviewable decision; and
    3. the public interest.
  3. [10]
    These are threshold factors which must be satisfied before the Tribunal’s discretion to grant a stay is enlivened. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the Tribunal will need to have regard to the prospects of success on the underlying application and to the balance of convenience[3] or other discretionary factors, such as those set out in Dr Choo-Tian Lee v Medical Board of Australia.[4]
  4. [11]
    Relevantly, in these applications, the Tribunal makes at most a preliminary view of the merits of the matter on the limited material before it.[5]
  5. [12]
    In the occupational regulation jurisdiction, the Tribunal assigns special significance to any public interest in granting or refusing a stay of the operation of the original decision. The starting point is that the original decision must not be treated as a provisional determination subject to intercession in review proceedings. The respondent is entitled to the outcome of its exercise of statutory jurisdiction, until varied or set aside in review proceedings.[6]
  6. [13]
    The applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that there is a “cogent reason for the stay”.[7]

What are the interestsof any person who may be affectedby the decision to make or not make a stay?

  1. [14]
    In the Stay Application, Ms LJY contends in summary that:[8]
    1. the conditions are legally unreasonable, procedurally unfair and unenforceable under Australian administrative law;
    2. procedural deficiencies in the determination including failure to provide adequate notice, clear compliance mechanisms and consideration of foreseeable industry-wide consequences have placed her in an untenable position of automatic noncompliance; and
    3. public listing of the conditions has caused immediate and irreparable reputational, professional and financial harm as they effectively operate as a de facto suspension without legal justification.
  2. [15]
    Ms LJY made a number of submissions in support of the Stay Application.
  3. [16]
    Firstly, Ms LJY submitted the Decision was not necessary to address an imminent or ongoing public safety risk.[9] As the Board appears to have acted under s 178(1)(a)(i) of the National Law, the issue of serious risk does not arise. Rather it seems the statutory consideration for the Tribunal on the review will be whether the way Ms LJY practises the profession is or may be unsatisfactory.[10]
  4. [17]
    Next, Ms LJY submits the Decision was made on 3 December 2024 but not notified to her until 10 December 2024. The Decision was expressed to be effective ‘immediately’ and required her to complete, sequentially, education and mentoring conditions in specified timeframes, where she was required to identify and have the education approved, then identify and have the mentor approved. Ms LJY submitted that the time of year compounded the difficulty in complying with the conditions, as it was the lead up to Christmas and the holiday period for many relevant professionals was commencing imminently. The Tribunal understands this factual matrix supports a submission which can be summarised as being that the manner in which the conditions were imposed was procedurally unfair. There is no evidence before the Tribunal on the Stay Application of any steps Ms LJY took to try to comply, or difficulties she faced in finding relevant personnel to support this submission. The Ahpra Protocol ‘Complete Mentoring’ contained in Ms LJY’s filed folder of materials and located with the Decision provides that the mentor needs to be nominated within 60 days of the restriction start date, which would have given her until early February 2025 to locate a suitable mentor.
  5. [18]
    Thirdly, Ms LJY submits the conditions caused her irreparable harm professionally, publicly and financially. In respect of the latest of these, her submissions record the conditions prevent her from providing unrestricted services under the NDIS framework directly impacting her livelihood and practice operations. The decision on which she relies, Bay v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency,[11] is not relevant to her argument. That case involved a practitioner who faced no allegation that he had or was providing any services that failed to meet the applicable professional standards.[12] There is no statement in that case in the terms alleged by Ms LJY in her submissions.
  1. [19]
    Next Ms LJY argued that requiring the conditions to be complied with pending her appeal is unfair, because it would effectively require her to undertake the compliance required before her right to test the appropriateness of the Decision has been given effect to. As set out below, the Board accepts this is a factor in favour of the grant of a stay. In the Stay Application, Ms LJY referred to Queensland College of Teachers v PPL [2018] QCAT 383 in support of her contention that “failure to grant a Stay would cause irreparable harm or prejudice [her] ability to exercise right of appeal”. There is no such authority.[13]
  1. [20]
    Ms LJY then submitted that the imposition and enforcement of the conditions has a disproportionate effect on individuals in rural and remote communities who already have more limited access to services than those in urban areas. Again, there is no evidence to support this submission on the Stay Application. Further, the decision Ms LJY has cited in support of this principle is not authority for it. Medical Board of Australia v Ong[14] involved the referral of a general practitioner to the Tribunal for conduct involving inappropriate prescribing of various drugs and record keeping concerning 12 patients.[15] It proceeded on agreed and disputed facts, where the practitioner had already been complying with the terms of an agreement with the Medicine Regulation and Quality Unit of Queensland Health for a two year period that she work in a group practice, undertake self-audit and professional development education and participate in a mentoring programme.[16] Further conditions remained on her registration relating to the flow of information between Queensland Health and the Board for a further six months.[17] There was expert evidence which the practitioner accepted and she admitted her conduct constituted professional misconduct.[18] The parties proposed an agreed sanction involving a short period of suspension and the imposition of conditions requiring continuing mentoring and auditing of the practitioner’s records.[19] The Tribunal accepted the suspension proposed was in range and that those aspects of the conditions which were agreed were appropriate;[20] the Tribunal made a determination about the number of audits required. The practitioner was ordered to pay the Board’s costs.[21]
  2. [21]
    Ms LJY’s final submission was that denying a stay would establish a dangerous precedent, where practitioners in high-demand service regions are forced to cease or restrict practice based on contested regulatory decisions before their appeal rights have been fully exercised. Again, Ms LJY advances no evidence in support of this proposition. The Tribunal has been unable to locate Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2007] QCA 283, a decision Ms LJY has referred to in support of this part of her submissions.[22] As the Tribunal can inform itself in any way it considers appropriate,[23] I checked what ChatGPT had to say, if anything, about Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2007] QCA 283. ChatGPT told me broadly:
  1. Where the case could be found. As I have already noted, it does not exist in any of those locations, which are databases of Australian and Queensland cases and legislation;
  2. By way of overview that the case is a significant case decided in the Queensland Court of Appeal, revolving around whether a stay should be granted for the suspension of a solicitor’s ability to practise law and that it is a case which highlights key issues relating to administrative law, procedural fairness and the balance of convenience when determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal;
  3. The Crime and Misconduct Commission had decided to suspend Mr Chapman’s ability to practise law, based on certain alleged misconduct;
  4. Mr Chapman sought a stay, arguing it would cause significant harm to him professionally and personally as it would prevent him from earning a livelihood and effectively practising law whilst his appeal was pending. It would also impact the interests of his clients as they would no longer have access to his legal services.
  1. [22]
    This information is wrong: the case does not exist.
  2. [23]
    Queensland Courts have issued Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers. A copy is attached to these reasons. These guidelines apply in the Tribunal.
  3. [24]
    They set out that, amongst other things:
    1. Generative AI chatbots are not actually intelligent in the ordinary human sense;
    2. The answers Generative AI chatbots generate are what the chatbot predicts to be the most likely combination of words based on the documents and data that it holds as source information, not necessarily the most accurate answer;
    3. Generative AI chatbots are not search engines and do not provide answers from authoritative databases. Rather they generate new text using a complex algorithm, based on the prompts they receive and the data from which they have been ‘trained’;
    4. Generative AI Chatbots can make up fake cases, citations and quotes, or refer to legislation, articles or legal texts that do not exist, can provide incorrect or misleading information about the law or how it may apply in a particular case or get facts wrong;
  1. litigants before the Tribunal are responsible for:
    1. (i)
      understanding the capabilities and limitations of Generative AI Chatbots; and
    1. (ii)
      checking all information a litigant relies on or provides to the Tribunal is accurate; and
    1. (iii)
      that the accuracy of any information a litigant gets from a Generative AI Chatbot must be checked before using that information in tribunal proceedings.
  1. [25]
    These Guidelines are  on the Tribunal’s website at: https://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/              data/assets/pdf_file/0004/798907/artificial- intelligence-guidelines-for-non-lawyers.pdf .
  2. [26]
    It is important that Ms LJY, and other litigants before the Tribunal, understand that including non-existent information in submissions or other material filed in the Tribunal weakens their arguments. It raises issues about whether their submission can be considered as accurate and reliable. It may cause the Tribunal to be less trusting of other submissions which they make. It wastes the time for Tribunal members in checking and addressing these hallucinations. It causes a significant waste of public resources.
  3. [27]
    The factual issues on the review will involve a review of the practitioner’s professional communication, acting within scope of practice and use of appropriate assessment tools. I am not able to reach any concluded view of the prospects of success of the review application and I do not attempt to do so here. Having considered the material in Ms LJY’s folder of material, the material before the Board (at least some of which is common) and the Decision, the Decision is not so clearly wrong and Ms LJY’s prospects of success in her application are not so clearly good as to weigh in favour of a stay.

What does the Board, as the decision maker, say?

  1. [28]
    The Board does not oppose the Stay Application so far as it seeks orders that suspend Ms LJY’s compliance with the conditions imposed on her registration until the substantive review application has been determined. It:[24]
    1. Contends that the Decision is not so clearly wrong and Ms LJY’s prospects of success in her application are not so clearly good as to weigh in favour of a stay;
    2. Accepts that if the stay is not granted, the ultimate decision of the Tribunal on the substantive proceeding will arguably be rendered futile, given the compliance date for the conditions is on or about 3 June 2025. Consequently, the Board accepts that avoiding futility is a factor that weighs significantly in favour of granting a stay until the substantive proceeding is resolved; and
  1. Accepts Ms LJY will suffer prejudice in that the cost of compliance with the conditions is likely significant and weighs significantly in favour of granting a stay until the substantive proceeding is resolved.
  1. [29]
    The Board submits it is open to the Tribunal to grant a stay operating with the effect that Ms LJY is not required to comply with the conditions on her registration until the substantive review application has been determined.

Where does the public interest lie?

  1. [30]
    The public interest is a broad term, generally importing a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters, confined only in so far as the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statutory enactment provides.
  2. [31]
    In exercising powers under s 178 of the National Law the Board is to have regard to:
    1. The object of protecting the public. That is reflected in the main guiding principle for administering the National Law, which is that the protection of the public and public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners are paramount;[25] and
    2. Other guiding principles including that restrictions on the practise of a health profession are to be imposed only if it is necessary to ensure health services are provided safely and are of an appropriate quality.[26]
  3. [32]
    In this case the balancing of the public interest involves that the Board has not acted on the basis that Ms LJY presents a ‘serious risk’ and it does not oppose the grant of a stay. Further is the consideration that the likely time to have the matter determined in the Tribunal would see relief rendered otiose if Ms LJY was required to undertake the education and the mentoring conditions pending the outcome of her application and then succeeds on her application.
  4. [33]
    As the Tribunal’s discretion to grant a stay is enlivened, balancing all these factors, I have determined that it is appropriate to grant a stay of the Decision until the review has been heard and determined.

Should there be a non-publication order to protect the identity of the patient and the patient’s family?

  1. [34]
    There is presently no non-publication order protecting the identity of the patient the subject of the functional capacity assessment report or the patient’s family. It is recognised generally that it is appropriate to protect information concerning the health of patients and their treatment which is a class of information coming within s 66(2)(d) of the QCAT Act.[27] That general principle applies in this case.
  2. [35]
    Because the Tribunal has made observations about the use of Generative AI in submissions before the Tribunal which may attract wider attention, to ensure the patient’s identity is protected, in this case it will extend the operation of that non- publication order to the practitioner, at least until further order.
  1. [36]
    The Tribunal, acting on its own initiative pursuant to s 66(3) of the QCAT Act, will, until further order, make a non-publication order to protect the identity of the patient, the patient’s family and Ms LJY.

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Al) Guidelinesfor Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers

Introduction

These guidelines apply to civil and criminal proceedings in Queensland courts and tribunals, including the Supreme Court, District Court, Planning and Environment Court, Magistrates Courts, Land Court, Childrens Court, Industrial Court, Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Before using Generative Al chatbots, or any other Al tool, make sure you have a basic understanding of their capabilities and their limitations.

Queensland courts and tribunals have noticed that some users are starting to use Generative Al chatbots (such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot or Google Gemini) to help prepare court documents.

These guidelines for the responsible use of Generative Al chatbots in court and tribunal proceedings have been developed to assist non-lawyers (including self-represented litigants, McKenzie friends, lay advocates and employment advocates) who represent themselves or others.

It is important to note that Generative Al is not a substitute for a qualified lawyer and cannot give you tailored legal advice. Currently available Generative Al chatbots have been known to provide inaccurate information on Australian law. Using Generative Al chatbots is not an alternative to seeking legal advice.

If you choose to use Generative Al chatbots to help you with your court case, you should not rely on this as your sole or main source of legal information.

You should also seek legal advice from a lawyer (if possible) or refer to publicly available legal resources such as:

  • Australasian Legal Information Institute (www.austlii.edu.au)
  • Queensland Judgments (www.queenslandjudgments.com.au)
  • Queensland Legislation (www.legislation.qld.gov.au)

For information about applying for legal aid, refer to Legal Aid Queensland's website (www.legalaid.qld.gov.au).

A list of common terms used in these guidelines, and answers to frequently asked questions are set out in Appendix A.

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

  1. 1.
    Understand Generative Al and its applications

Before using Generative Al chatbots (or any other Al tool) make sure you have a basic understanding of their capabilities and their limitations.

Despite the name, Generative Al chatbots are not actually intelligent in the ordinary human sense. Nor is the way in which they provide answers analogous to the human reasoning process. It is important to note:

  • Generative Al chatbots are built on Large Language Models (LLMs). LLMs analyse a large amount of training text to predict the probability of the next best word in a sentence given the context. Just as Google offers to autocomplete your search, LLMs autocomplete repeatedly to form words, sentences, and paragraphs of text.
  • LLMs have been further trained on ideal human written responses to prompts, and on survey results, about which responses sound most natural or best mimic human dialogue.
  • This means the answers which Generative Al chatbots generate is what the chatbot predicts to be the most likely combination of words (based on the documents and data that it holds as source information), not necessarily the most accurate answer.
  • And because their responses are on probability-derived calculations about the next best word in context, these tools are unable to reliably answer questions that require a nuanced understanding of language content. They have no intrinsic understanding of what any word they output means, nor a conception of truth.

Some capabilities of Generative Al chatbots

Generative Al chatbots cannot give you reliable legal advice that is tailored to your specific case. However, they may be able to help you by identifying and explaining laws and legal principles that might be relevant to your situation.

Generative Al chatbots may be able to help you prepare some basic legal documents. For example, they may be able to help you organise the facts into a clearer structure or suggest suitable headings. They can also help with formatting and provide suggestions on grammar, tone, vocabulary and writing style.

Some limitations of Generative Al chatbots

Generative Al chatbots are not search engines. They do not provide answers from authoritative databases, but rather generate new text using a complex algorithm, based on the prompts they receive and the data with which they have been 'trained'. Generally, the text used to train public Generative Al chatbots comes from various internet sources, such as webpages, online books, and social media posts.

This means the output which Generative Al chatbots generate is what the chatbot predicts to be the most likely combination of words (based on the documents and data that it holds as source information), not necessarily the most correct or accurate answer.

The currently available Generative Al chatbots have limited 'training' on Australian law and court procedure. Even when the training for Generative Al chatbots improves, there will be a limitation based on the currency of the data on which they have been trained.

2

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

Generative Al chatbots cannot:

  • understand the unique fact situation in your case
  • understand your cultural and emotional needs
  • understand the broader Australian social and legal context
  • predict the chance of success or the outcome of your case
  • be trusted to always provide legal or other information that is relevant, accurate, complete, up-to- date and unbiased.

The helpfulness of any answers you receive from a Generative Al chatbot depends on the questions or "prompts" which you ask.

Anyone using Al must bear in mind that Generative Al chatbots cannot distinguish between facts, inferences and opinions contained in their source datasets. This means that text which they generate in response to a prompt may contain incorrect, opinionated, misleading or biased statements presented as fact.

  1. 2.
    Consider confidentiality, suppression, and privacy

Do not enter any private, confidential, suppressed or legally privileged information into a Generative Al chatbot.

Some Generative Al chatbots will remember every question that you ask them, as well as any other information you put into them. That information could then be repeated in response to queries from other users. As a result, anything you put into a Generative Al chatbot could become publicly known. This could result in you unintentionally breaching suppression orders, or accidentally disclosing your own or someone else's private or confidential information.

  1. 3.
    Ensure accuracy

You are responsible for ensuring that all information you rely on or provide to the court or tribunal is accurate. You must check the accuracy of any information you get from a Generative Al chatbot before using that information in court or tribunal proceedings.

Information provided by Generative Al chatbots may be inaccurate, incomplete, or out of date. It may also be based on overseas law that does not apply in Australia. Generative Al chatbots can:

  • make up fake cases, citations and quotes, or refer to legislation, articles or legal texts that do not exist
  • provide incorrect or misleading information about the law or how it might apply in your case
  • get facts wrong.

Fake material produced by Generative Al chatbots can seem like it has been taken from a real source even when it has not.

You should check any legal information you get from a Generative Al chatbot with a lawyer (if possible). You can also refer to publicly available legal resources such as those referred to in the introduction.

3

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

  1. 4.
    Be aware of ethical issues

Al tools based on LLMs generate responses based on the dataset upon which they are trained. Information generated by such tools will inevitably reflect whatever gaps, errors and biases are contained in their training data. You should always have regard to this possibility and the need to correct this.

The use of Al tools based on LLMs may also raise copyright and plagiarism issues. For example, Generative Al chatbots can be very useful in condensing or summarising information or presenting the information in a different format. However, the following should be considered:

  • using a chatbot to summarise a portion of a textbook or other intellectual property could breach the author's copyright
  • any such use would need to be carefully reviewed to ensure the summarised passage carries the same meaning as the original content
  • depending on context, the source may need to be acknowledged and citations added.

Similarly, Generative Al chatbots can be a helpful tool in planning a speech and producing an outline of potential speaking points. They could then be used to elaborate further on potential content for a specific speaking point. However it would be important to ensure that any Al-generated material was accurate and supported by reliable sources. And, again, depending on context, the source may need to be acknowledged and citations added.

  1. 5.
    Maintain security

Find out and follow general cyber-safety best practices for maintaining your own security and that of the courts and tribunals.

13 May 2024

Version history:

Guideline issued on 13 May 2024

4

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

APPENDIXA

Common terms

Artificial intelligence (Al)

Computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence

Generative Al

A form of Al which enables users to generate new content, which can include text, images, sounds and computer code

Generative Al chatbot

A computer program which simulates online human conversations using Generative Al

ChatGPT

OpenAl's Generative Al chatbot. ChatGPT stands for "Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer"

Google Gemini

Google's Generative Al chatbot

Microsoft Copilot

Microsoft's Generative Al chatbot

Large language model (LLM)

An LLM is an Al model which, through sophisticated pattern recognition and probabilistic calculations, learns to predict the next best word or part of a word in a sentence. An LLM generates responses to questions or "prompts"

Non-lawyers

Include:

Litigants in person: people who represent themselves in a court or tribunal (sometimes also called self- represented or unrepresented litigants)

McKenzie friends: non-lawyers who attend a court to support someone who does not have legal representation

Lay advocates: non-lawyers who appear for people in some courts or tribunals, where that is allowed by legislation or with leave of the court or tribunal.

Employment advocates: non-lawyers who represent people involved in employment disputes

Prompt

A short instruction entered to a generative Al chatbot to obtain an answer or output.

5

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

Frequently asked questions

What are Generative Al chatbots and how do they work?

Generative Al chatbots, such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot, are Al tools that have been trained to respond in a conversational, online chat style. You can enter prompts (questions) to get the chatbots to do things like generate or summarise text or answer questions. You can also enter more prompts to refine the chatbots' response.

These chatbots are built on Al algorithms called Large Language Models (LLMs). LLMs analyse a large amount of training text to predict the probability of the next best word in a sentence given the context. Just as Google offers to autocomplete your search, LLMs autocomplete repeatedly to form words, sentences, and paragraphs of text.

What information is used to answer my questions?

The answers provided by Generative Al chatbots depend on the content of the datasets from which they are trained. Generally, the text used to train public Generative Al chatbots comes from various internet sources, such as webpages, online books, and social media posts. There is limited Australian legal information in the training text, which to date does not include a significant body of Australian cases. This impacts the accuracy of any Australian legal information an Al chatbot may provide.

Al chatbots cannot tell the difference between facts and opinions contained in their source information. This means that the text generated by Al chatbots may include incorrect, opinionated, misleading or biased statements presented as fact.

In addition, the training data used by some Al chatbots may be out of date. For example, as at the date of issue of this guideline, ChatGPT was based on information last updated in April 2023.

Why am I receiving incorrect information?

As Generative Al chatbots base their responses on probability-derived calculations about the next best word in context, they are unable to reliably answer questions that require an understanding of the meaning of the text. These tools have no genuine understanding of what a word actually means or any idea of truth.

Generative Al chatbots are known to produce false information which may appear true - this is called "hallucinating". In the legal field, this may lead to Generative Al chatbots making up non-existent cases, changing facts, and producing incorrect citations. By their very nature, LLMs will produce answers that sound convincing even when they are entirely fictitious.

What tasks are Generative Al chatbots best used for?

Generative Al chatbots are best at text processing tasks. These tasks include summarising text by making it shorter or changing its tone or format and generating new text (or a plan for new text) in a specific format.

They can also provide useful information about certain topics and answer questions. However, whenever you use Generative Al chatbots for these purposes it is important to remember that they can get information wrong.

LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96

Footnotes

[1] Taken from Ms LJY’s submission for appeal folder, email to notifications at Ahpra on 4 September 2024.

[2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 22(4) (‘QCAT Act’).

[3] Asinas v Medical Board of Australia [2020] QCAT 490 [28]; Pluta v Medical Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 212 [22].

[4] [2016] QCAT 23 [17]-[18].

[5] Ibid [21].

[6] Ibid [17]-[18] (Carmody J).

[7] Magill v Queensland Law Society Inc [2019] QCAT 392 [12].

[8] Application to stay a decision dated 14 February 2025 (‘Stay Application’) Part B.

[9] Submission Application for Stay of Decision filed in the Tribunal by Ms LJY on 17 February 2025, p 5 (‘Applicant’s submissions in support of the Stay Application’).

[10] Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 178(1)(a)(i) (‘National Law’); Decision [13].

[11] [2024] QCSC 315.

[12] Ibid [14].

[13] The decision at [2018] QCAT 383 is Frescon v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCAT 383 and it concerned the issue of a blue card. In Queensland College of Teachers v PPL [2019] QCAT 278 the Tribunal continued the suspension of a teacher who, at that time was charged with a serious offence.

[14] [2016] QCAT 54.

[15] Ibid [4].

[16] Ibid [7].

[17] Ibid [9].

[18] Ibid [15].

[19] Ibid [20].

[20] Ibid [26]-[29].

[21] Ibid [47].

[22] The authority with the citation [2007] QCA 283 is R v SBC [2007] QCA 283, a criminal law matter. A word search for the names cited in the case law database did not yield any case where the parties were the Crime and Misconduct Commission and Chapman.

[23] QCAT Act (n 2) s 28(3)(c).

[24] Written submissions of the Board filed in the Tribunal on 25 February 2025.

[25] National Law (n 10) s 3A(1).

[26] Ibid s 3A(2)(c).

[27] Ha v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 91 [6].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia

  • Shortened Case Name:

    LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 96

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Judge Dann, Deputy President

  • Date:

    26 Mar 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Asinas v Medical Board of Australia [2020] QCAT 490
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 490
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 490
Frescon v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QCAT 383
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 383
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 383
Cite 3 - [2018] QCAT 383
Ha v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 91
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 91
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 91
Lee v Medical Board of Australia [2016] QCAT 23
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 23
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 23
Magill v Queensland Law Society Inc [2019] QCAT 392
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 392
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 392
Medical Board of Australia v Ong [2016] QCAT 54
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 54
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 54
Pluta v Medical Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 212
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 212
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 212
Queensland College of Teachers v PPL [2019] QCAT 278
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 278
R v SBC [2007] QCA 283
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] QCA 283
Cite 2 - [2007] QCA 283
Cite 3 - [2007] QCA 283
Cite 4 - [2007] QCA 283

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Wise and Wise Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCAT 2222 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.