This article is about the legal risks of AI building tools in strata maintenance.
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are becoming more common in building management — from predictive maintenance systems to thermal imaging drones detecting water ingress. These technologies promise earlier detection of building issues, reduced maintenance costs and fewer surprises for committees.
But while AI may be smart, it doesn’t shift legal responsibility.
In Queensland, the body corporate generally remains responsible for maintaining common property under the regulation modules. As AI becomes more embedded in reports and maintenance schedules, building and strata managers should pause to ask, are these tools legally safe to rely on?
AI is already helping:
- Predict when lifts or mechanical systems are likely to fail through predictive maintenance analytics;
- Detect leaks and cracks in walls and windows using thermal imaging drones;
- Optimise heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems by adjusting to real-time occupancy and usage patterns;
- Compare contractor quotes and performance metrics through AI-based tender evaluation platforms;
- Create digital twins—virtual replicas of buildings—for simulation, compliance planning and performance monitoring;
- Automate maintenance logs, compliance tracking and long-term capital works forecasts.
These tools may be useful — but only when used with care. When relied upon without proper human verification, they can create new legal exposures.
Legal Pitfalls for Strata Managers in Relying on Automated Reports
1. Statutory Duties Still Apply
Even if an AI tool suggests that no urgent work is required, failure to act on visible defects or verified reports could expose the body corporate to liability, especially if owners suffer loss.
2. AI Reports are not Expert Evidence
Under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (particularly Part 5, rule 429H), expert reports must set out the expert’s qualifications, reasoning, and assumptions. QCAT also requires expert reports in building matters to be clear, verifiable, and authored by a qualified person. An AI-generated defect list on its own will not meet these requirements.
3. Contractual Gaps
When AI tools are integrated into a consultant’s or contractor’s service, the service agreement should clearly state:
- Who owns the data;
- Who is liable for inaccurate reports;
- Whether AI is being used in scope identification or progress certification.
No Case Law Yet, But Standards are Emerging
There are currently no reported Queensland cases where an AI-generated defect report has been formally rejected in court or tribunal. However, courts and QCAT apply well-established principles: any technical evidence must be clear, traceable and interpretable by a qualified expert—not just produced by an algorithm.
The NSW Supreme Court has issued Practice Note SC Gen 23 (effective February 2025), which bans the use of generative AI in expert reports unless approved in advance. While not binding in Queensland, it signals how courts are likely to treat AI: as a tool, not a substitute for legal, factual or expert input.
Looking Ahead: AI Tools on the Horizon for Strata
As AI technologies continue to develop, bodies corporate are likely to encounter a new wave of “smart” building tools promising even greater automation and insights. These include:
- AI-driven fault prediction models that continuously monitor mechanical and electrical systems and predict failures before they happen;
- Occupancy sensors paired with AI algorithms to automatically optimise energy usage and detect abnormal patterns (e.g. leaks when no one is home);
- Automated by-law enforcement tools, such as video analytics platforms that detect unauthorised parking or short-term letting in real time;
- Chatbots and virtual assistants that handle maintenance requests, track updates, and even guide lot owners through basic by-law queries.
While these tools offer potential operational efficiencies, they also raise new legal considerations. For example:
- Privacy obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) may be triggered where video, biometric, or occupancy data is collected;
- Transparency around how AI decisions are made may become essential, especially if an owner disputes an enforcement action or fee;
- Liability for system failures, false positives, or unauthorised data collection may not yet be addressed in vendor contracts.
Strata managers and committees should not be afraid to use these tools—but they should adopt them with their eyes open. Early engagement with legal advisors can help ensure:
- Proper review of contracts before rollout;
- Fair and transparent committee communication with owners and occupiers;
- Updated by-laws or policies where AI tools interact with resident behaviour.
As technology evolves, so too should the governance framework that supports it.
Due Diligence Before Relying on AI: Questions Committees Should Ask
Before your committee acts on an AI-generated report or system, ask:
- Has the report been reviewed and signed by a qualified expert?
- Is the tool storing data securely and within Australia?
- Have we reviewed the contract with the provider to clarify liability?
- Could we defend this report in court or QCAT?
Summary
AI is increasingly used in strata building management — assisting with predictive maintenance, thermal inspections, HVAC optimisation and automated reporting. But while these tools offer cost and efficiency benefits, they don’t change legal responsibility. Bodies corporate in Queensland remain liable for maintaining common property and cannot rely solely on AI-generated reports to meet statutory or evidentiary standards. Current legal risks include: continued duty to act on observable defects; limits on the admissibility of AI-generated findings in QCAT and court; and unclear liability and data ownership in vendor contracts. With no Queensland decisions on point, emerging interstate rules suggest courts will treat AI as a helpful tool, never a substitute for qualified professional input.
Peter Waller Grace Lawyers E: enquiries@gracelawyers.com.au
This post appears in Strata News #755.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read next:
- NAT Can AI like ChatGPT help Strata Managers?
- NAT: How technology can transform the role of your caretaker or building manager
- NAT: The EVs (and eBikes, eScooters…) are coming: How committees should prepare
This article has been republished with permission from the author and first appeared on the Grace Lawyers website in June 2025.
Visit our Maintenance and Common Property OR Strata Legislation QLD.
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.