KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Core Issue: Superficially legalistic or AI-generated submissions cannot substitute for coherent, legally sound arguments supported by evidence in workers compensation claims.
• Court Ruling: The SAET dismissed the worker’s late and misconceived appeals for failing to identify arguable questions of law, ordering her to pay 85% of the employer’s allowable legal costs.
• Evidentiary Weight / Key Principle: Fluency and impressive legal terminology do not equal legal merit; objective legal assessment and early professional representation are critical to avoid futile litigation.

What a recent South Australian decision shows about self-representation, appeals and legal arguments that sound convincing but miss the point

Artificial intelligence can produce documents that sound impressively legal without necessarily producing a legally sound argument. A recent South Australian Employment Court decision raises that concern—but the Court did not find that the worker had used AI. It said only that her written submissions ‘bore the impression of artificial intelligence’.

What concerned the Court was the apparent gap between the legalistic language of the written submissions and the worker’s ability to explain her argument. When she addressed the Court orally, her submissions were described as ‘incomprehensible verbiage’.

The case was unusual. It involved two attempts to challenge decisions made more than four years earlier, rather than an ordinary initial claim for workers compensation. Even so, it illustrates an important point for any injured worker: legal proceedings are not won by using legal-sounding language. The real work lies in identifying the correct legal issue, presenting the relevant evidence and making an objective assessment of whether the case should be pursued at all.

Do I have to use a lawyer for a workers compensation claim?

No. An injured worker can deal directly with the insurer and may represent themselves in proceedings. The more useful question, however, is whether doing so is sensible in the particular circumstances.

Some claims are accepted without a dispute. Others turn on medical evidence, the connection between work and injury, the worker’s capacity for employment, calculation of weekly payments or the reasonableness of treatment expenses. Time limits and procedural requirements may also affect what can be claimed and when.

Once a dispute reaches the South Australian Employment Tribunal or Court, the worker must do more than explain why the outcome feels unfair. They must identify the decision that should be made, the legal basis for it and the evidence supporting it. A lawyer’s role is not simply to write letters or speak in court. It includes identifying the issues that matter, excluding those that do not and advising candidly about the strengths and weaknesses of the case.

What went wrong in the recent case?

The worker attempted to revive one appeal that had already been dismissed and to bring another appeal substantially out of time. Appeals in South Australian workers compensation matters are restricted to questions of law. It was therefore essential to identify an arguable legal error.

The Court found that neither application did so. Her submissions were described as a ‘scattergun of legal concepts’, lacking focus and containing repeated irrelevancies. She tried to revisit factual findings made in the original proceedings rather than identify a question of law that could properly be considered on appeal.

The Court had repeatedly attempted to direct her attention to the real issues. She nevertheless continued along the same path. Her applications were found to be misconceived, lacking in substance and doomed to fail.

“Genuinely believing an appeal will be successful will not make it so; doomed to fail will always fail.”

That observation has significance beyond appeals. People are understandably invested in claims concerning their health, livelihood and financial security. A genuine belief that an injustice has occurred is important, but it cannot replace the legal elements that must be established. One of the benefits of independent legal advice is an objective assessment of whether the evidence and the law support that belief.

Can I use AI to prepare my workers compensation case?

AI may help a person organise information or understand unfamiliar terminology, but it cannot safely replace legal advice tailored to the facts of a claim.

The Court did not make a finding that the worker had used AI. It said only that her written submissions bore the impression of it. That distinction matters. The concern was not the use of a particular technology as such; it was the gap between polished legal language and a coherent, relevant argument.

“Her written submissions were superficially legalistic; they bore the impression of artificial intelligence. Her oral submissions belied the articulation of the written work; quite frankly, they were incomprehensible verbiage.”

AI systems can produce confident answers that are incomplete, inaccurate or based on law from another jurisdiction. They may invent authorities, overlook time limits or fail to appreciate why a particular fact changes the legal analysis. A document may look professional while missing the question the Court actually has to decide.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using technology as a support tool. The danger arises when its output is treated as legal advice, copied without verification or relied upon by someone who cannot test whether the argument is correct. In legal proceedings, fluent wording is not a substitute for judgment.

Could I be ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs?

Yes, but adverse costs orders are unusual in South Australian workers compensation matters. The legislation provides a comparatively protective costs regime for injured workers.

The Court explained that an unsuccessful worker may still recover a substantial proportion of their legal costs where proceedings were reasonably brought and conducted and were not frivolous or vexatious. This helps ensure that a worker with an arguable claim is not deterred from seeking compensation merely because they cannot afford litigation.

That protection is not unlimited. The Court can make a different costs order where a party acts unreasonably, frivolously or vexatiously. In this case, the worker had brought applications with no real prospect of success, attempted to revisit factual issues and persisted despite guidance about the defects in her case. She was ordered to pay the employer’s reasonable costs, up to 85 per cent of the amount allowable under the applicable Higher Courts scale.

The decision should not discourage workers with genuine, arguable disputes. It does show why early advice matters. A lawyer may identify a viable path that a worker has missed. Just as importantly, a lawyer may prevent a worker from spending time, money and emotional energy on proceedings that cannot achieve the desired result.

What does a workers compensation lawyer actually do?

A workers compensation lawyer should help the worker understand both the value and the limits of their claim.

That can involve obtaining and analysing medical evidence, identifying the decisions that can be challenged, meeting time limits and presenting the case in a way that addresses the governing legislation. If an appeal is being considered, the lawyer must distinguish between disagreement with factual findings and an appealable question of law.

Good advice also includes knowing when not to litigate. A lawyer who explains that a proposed application has poor prospects is not failing to support the client. They may be protecting the client from further expense, delay and an adverse costs order.

When should I obtain legal advice?

It is sensible to seek advice as soon as a claim is disputed, payments are reduced or stopped, treatment is declined, a return-to-work issue becomes contentious or an appeal is being considered.

Early advice is particularly important where a deadline may apply. Waiting until after a decision has become final can narrow the available options, even where the worker remains convinced that the result was wrong.

The recent decision does not mean that every injured worker needs a lawyer for every interaction with an insurer. Nor does it mean that self-represented workers will inevitably fail. It demonstrates something more measured: workers compensation law contains technical rules, and good intentions or persuasive-sounding documents cannot overcome a case that does not meet them.

Before commencing, abandoning or appealing a workers compensation claim, an injured worker should understand the legal test, the evidence required, the available options and the possible costs consequences. Obtaining advice at that point can make the difference between pursuing a sound claim and ploughing what the Court in this case called an ‘unproductive furrow’.

If you are uncertain about a workers compensation decision or the next step in your claim, a lawyer can assess your circumstances and explain the options available to you.

Case discussed: Ng v South Australia Police (No 2) [2026] SAET 108.