About Plan/Maps FCRC DT - Appeal P&E-C- Appeal Chronology Contact

Intro

One of the major questions facing our society today is whether artificial intelligence can — or should — take on roles traditionally performed by humans.

Recently, I had a deeply disappointing experience in the Planning & Environment Court. It left me wondering a simple but confronting question:

Would I have received a more appropriate outcome if the decision had been made by an AI instead of a human judge?

That question led me to investigate whether, even at this early stage of its development, AI has the capacity to reason responsibly, apply law consistently, and avoid the human errors that affected my case.

This website provides all the material — the documents, the submissions, the decisions, and the reasoning — so that you can conduct your own case study.

So: UBJudge. Would our society be better served if AI, rather than humans, decided certain matters in our courts?

My Story

In February 2024 I became involved with a property development in Tuan, a small fishing village located in the Great Sandy Strait in south east Queensland. The development application had been lodged in December 2021, and as the process had stalled, the property owners sought my assistance in moving it forward.

Prior to my retirement in 2009, I had operated a consultancy business for 15 years, providing services to clients dealing with local governments on a wide range of development related matters. That work was built on a career that began in 1966, during which I held various roles in local government involving environmental management, property development, and later land use planning.

Across those decades, I observed that development assessment processes were often inconsistent, and applicants could be disadvantaged when administrative decisions were applied rigidly or without clear reference to policy or statutory requirements. My consultancy work aimed to help clients navigate these situations and find practical, lawful solutions.

By January 2025 the Tuan development approval was issued. However, as is common, the approval contained a long list of conditions, many of which my clients considered irrelevant or inappropriate. Attempts to negotiate amendments with Council were unsuccessful, and the matter proceeded to an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court.

Two mediation sessions followed — the first involving both SARA and the Fraser Coast Regional Council, and the second involving SARA alone. Subsequent negotiations resulted in a consent order.

At the time the development approval was issued, Council also issued an Infrastructure Charges Notice requiring a contribution of $52,000 toward future trunk infrastructure. My review of the legislative framework and the Charges Resolution revealed several anomalies in both interpretation and drafting. Representations were made to Council, but no remedy was offered, and an appeal was lodged with the Queensland Development Tribunal in April 2025.

The Tribunal decided the appeal in November 2025, supporting Council’s position and dismissing the issues I had raised. As a result, an appeal was lodged in the Planning and Environment Court, seeking review of the legal basis for the Tribunal’s decision.

THE LAW

The law clearly provides that an appeal of this nature is restricted solely to questions of law underpinning the decision making process. Matters of fact or process are not relevant unless they reveal an error in the application of the law.[Ref]

hhhh

X

Contact Me

Warren Bolton *Mobile 04 293949 04 Email . *Becuase of the high volume of unsolicited call to this number, a filter is in place. If you have not been added to my contacts list you will be directed to my message bank. Please leave your message and I will return your call. - Email. is the more preferred method of contact