We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

Using computer technology to assist e-disclosure…

Using computer technology to assist with e-disclosure has always promised to reduce time and cost. For some years, computer software has been available to assist with the review process and now finally it is making an appearance in the UK.

In the latest edition of the Commercial Litigation Journal (Sept/Oct 2016), Lamb Chambers Barrister David Sawtell reviews the state of the law, the latest guidance from the courts and what litigators will need to know to get up to speed with computer assisted review.

Adopting predictive coding in document review

In the US and in other jurisdictions, computer assisted review through tools such as predictive coding has received endorsement from the courts and become an accepted part of litigation practice in more substantial cases. Up until this year, however, the English courts have not given practitioners a steer as to whether this is acceptable practice, let alone what process to follow.

When a party adopts predictive coding, its legal team ‘trains’ the software to carry out the review process by having it ‘watch’ a senior lawyer review a sample of documents. This process is repeated a number of times until the software has learned the review process to within an acceptable tolerance.

UK High Court guidance for automated document review

In two cases in the High Court, we now have a clearer idea as to what the courts will be looking for. In Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch), Master Matthews explained why the court had approved predictive coding. This was followed by Brown v BCA Trading Ltd [2016] EWHC 1464, where Registrar Jones approved this process in a contested case.

Cost and proportionality played a significant role in the decisions. Parties will still need to consider, however, what to do about inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents. Although in the US parties can entered into ‘clawback agreements’ for the return of such documents, their use in England is untested.

Find out more…

For more information, or to read a copy of the article itself, please contact David Sawtell’s Clerk on 020 7797 8300 or email David at DavidSawtell@lambchambers.co.uk .

Article reference: ‘A binary breakthrough’, Commercial Litigation Journal, September / October 2016, 6-7

David Sawtell / 4th Oct 2016


The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.

Download as PDF

Back to News