---
title: "Check a public authority's resources protection for a park, reserve or building"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/check-a-public-authority-s-resources-protection-for-a-park-reserve-or-bu"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A21-PL20261023-3"
practice_area: "Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-25"
---

# Check a public authority's resources protection for a park, reserve or building

> List the function the lawyer identifies, the resource material in the brief, and the section the other side has named. Do not write the advice on whether the protection applies.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/check-a-public-authority-s-resources-protection-for-a-park-reserve-or-bu  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-25

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | List the function the lawyer identifies, the resource material in the brief, and the section the other side has named. Do not write the advice on whether the protection applies. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether a resources principle or a special-power test applies, and writes the advice. Do not use this task for a road or footpath non-feasance question. Keep health and wage records in a firm-controlled tool, not a public one. ASCR r 9 and APP 11 apply. Decide if a breach is notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). |
| Written for / versions | 3 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

- What the AI does: List the function the lawyer identifies, the resource material in the brief, and the section the other side has named. Do not write the advice on whether the protection applies.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether a resources principle or a special-power test applies, and writes the advice. Do not use this task for a road or footpath non-feasance question. Keep health and wage records in a firm-controlled tool, not a public one. ASCR r 9 and APP 11 apply. Decide if a breach is notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.
- Restriction: The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm the claim is about a park, reserve or building, not a road or footpath.
2. In Victoria do not add an allocation sentence. Section 83 does not contain one.
3. In Victoria keep section 83 (duty and breach) separate from section 84 (breach of statutory duty).
4. In New South Wales separate section 42 from the section 43A special-power test.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.
- If the same facts later go into an affidavit or witness statement in the District Court of New South Wales, its Generative AI Practice Note (commenced 3 February 2025) says generative AI must not generate that content.
- Supreme Court of Victoria practice note SC GEN 25 (commenced 14 May 2026) calls for particular caution where generative AI assists with affidavit material, a witness statement or an expert report. The document must reflect the person's own knowledge.
- Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 requires the practitioner responsible for written submissions to be named, and to verify the references.

## Sources

- [Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) authorised version 130](https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-02/58-6420a130.docx) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) version 130, in force](https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/wrongs-act-1958/130) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) section 83, AustLII](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/wa1958111/s83.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 35, AustLII](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cla2003161/s35.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) section 42, AustLII](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s42.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) section 43A, AustLII](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s43a.html) (checked 2026-10-23)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [New South Wales](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/check-a-public-authority-s-resources-protection-for-a-park-reserve-or-bu/new-south-wales.md) | Red |
| [Victoria](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/check-a-public-authority-s-resources-protection-for-a-park-reserve-or-bu/victoria.md) | Red |
| [Queensland](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/check-a-public-authority-s-resources-protection-for-a-park-reserve-or-bu/queensland.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*