McGovern Legal

28/09/2026

The WorkCover WA Annual Report 2025/26 has now been released.

One particularly interesting observation appears in the dispute resolution section regarding the growing number of injured workers representing themselves in workers' compensation disputes.

According to WorkCover WA, the number of workers who were unrepresented at the point of application nearly doubled, increasing from 258 in 2020/21 to 513 in 2025/26. The report suggests this increase appears to coincide with advancements in artificial intelligence, with many workers relying on AI-generated information rather than seeking legal advice.

The report states that some workers developed unrealistic expectations of the dispute resolution process or relied on incorrect information due to the limitations of AI tools. In response, WorkCover WA says it introduced targeted education and updated case management arrangements to better support unrepresented workers.

As someone working in this area, I think this raises an important discussion.

AI can be a useful tool for helping people understand workers' compensation processes and terminology. However, workers' compensation disputes often involve complex issues including:
• liability decisions
• medical evidence
• weekly payments
• permanent impairment assessments
• common law rights
• procedural time limits

These are issues where tailored legal advice can make a significant difference.

The reality is that many injured workers do not seek legal advice because they are unaware that assistance is available, are concerned about costs, or believe they can manage the process themselves.

Access to information is important. Access to quality advice is equally important.

It will be interesting to see whether this trend continues in future years and what impact it has on claim outcomes for injured workers across Western Australia.

Read the report here:

26/05/2026

https://mcgovernlegal.com.au/f/a-guide-to-workers-compensation-claims

Understanding Workers' Compensation in Western Australia

23/04/2026

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) is currently dealing with an extremely high volume of applications. As a result, matters are taking noticeably longer than they once did, particularly at the front end of the process including the issuing of case numbers and the listing of conciliation conferences.

A significant contributor to this increase in volume is the growing use of AI tools by employees to draft unfair dismissal and general protections applications. This trend is not occurring because AI is replacing lawyers in any meaningful sense. Rather, it is filling a gap created by the economics of the system itself.

Most FWC matters are financially marginal. Settlement ranges are often modest, costs are rarely recoverable, and the work required to run a matter properly is disproportionate to the likely outcome. As a result, many people simply cannot afford legal representation, and many firms cannot economically justify taking these matters on. Legal aid and community legal services do not meaningfully bridge this gap as the demand is high.

In that environment, the realistic choice for many applicants is not “lawyer versus AI”, but AI‑assisted self‑representation versus no claim at all.

Unless the underlying economics change through better funding, different cost rules, or
stronger front‑end filtering mechanisms, AI‑driven self‑representation will continue to rise, not fall.

There are consequences to this shift. Many applicants approach the process with unrealistic expectations, a misinterpretation of legislation, or an overestimation of remedies available to them. AI can help draft documents, but it does not exercise forensic judgment, manage evidence, run hearings, or represent parties in conference or court. Applicants ultimately remain responsible for navigating a legal process they are not trained to handle.

At the same time, every application, regardless of its merits, still consumes Commission resources. This is where delay is now most visible, and where systemic pressure is most acute.

In short, this is not primarily a technology problem. It is an access‑to‑justice and funding problem. AI is simply amplifying pressures that already existed in a system where many disputes have high personal stakes, low financial value, and limited pathways to affordable representation.