The use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) in commercial litigation is no longer novel. In the Business and Property Courts, it is increasingly part of standard disclosure practice in large or complex litigation.
Practice Direction 57AD (PD 57AD), in force since 2022, governs disclosure in the Business and Property Courts. It did not radically change the law of disclosure. What it did was formalise a shift in culture: away from unfocused, document-heavy exercises and towards issue-led, proportionate and cost-effective disclosure.
Central to that shift is the expectation that parties will engage with technology.
PD 57AD expressly requires legal representatives to liaise and cooperate to promote the “reliable, efficient and cost-effective conduct of disclosure, including through the use of technology.” In other words, the use of appropriate legal technology is not an afterthought — it is part of modern best practice.
An evolution in practice, not a revolution in principle
Disclosure remains grounded in the same core principles: relevance, proportionality and transparency. Courts still expect parties to identify the issues in disputes, define the scope of searches and justify the approach taken.
What has evolved is how that exercise is carried out.
TAR — including predictive coding, machine learning and computer-assisted review — enables parties to manage large data sets in a way that would be impractical and disproportionate through purely manual review. In substantial Business and Property Court disputes, where document volumes can run into hundreds of thousands (or more), this is often not an option, but essential to keep cost proportionate.
The judiciary has for some time endorsed the use of TAR in appropriate cases. PD 57AD reflects that reality by embedding cooperation and technological competence into the disclosure framework.
What TAR actually does
Modern eDisclosure platforms such as Relativity, Everlaw and DISCO use machine learning to:
- prioritise likely relevant documents
- cluster conceptually similar material
- identify patterns and relationships across datasets
- reduce duplication and streamline review
- support consistent and efficient redaction
This does not mean that “AI replaces lawyers”. It does not determine legal relevance, interpret pleadings or exercise forensic judgment. Those responsibilities remain firmly with the legal team.
Rather, TAR enables lawyers to focus their expertise where it adds most value — on analysis, strategy and quality control — instead of spending disproportionate time on mechanical review.
Importance of methodology and defensibility
Under PD 57AD, parties must be able to explain and justify their disclosure approach, including the use of technology. The Disclosure Review Document (DRD) requires careful consideration of data sources, search methodologies and proportionality.
TAR is powerful, but it must be deployed properly. That involves:
- careful scoping of issues for disclosure
- appropriate training and validation of the review model
- sampling and quality control
- clear documentation of methodology
A well-designed, defensible TAR workflow enhances credibility before the court. A poorly designed one creates significant risk.
While parties can in principle deploy eDisclosure tools themselves, doing so without experienced legal and technical oversight carries obvious dangers. Decisions about data scoping, training sets, validation, sampling and quality control are not merely technical — they are forensic and strategic. If those decisions cannot be explained or justified, the risk falls squarely on the party. Cost savings achieved at the outset can quickly be outweighed by challenges from opponents, adverse costs consequences or judicial criticism.
In our experience of Business and Property Court litigation, early engagement with technology — and with the other party— is critical. Cooperative, transparent discussion about search parameters and review methodology can significantly reduce disputes later in the process.
The bottom line
AI has become an established feature of modern eDisclosure, particularly in complex commercial disputes involving large volumes of documents. It can be a powerful tool for working smarter under PD 57AD, but only when deployed carefully and with appropriate legal oversight.
This reflects the realities of modern business communication and data volumes. PD 57AD did not introduce a new obligation to use AI. It reinforced the expectation that parties will conduct disclosure intelligently, proportionately and with appropriate technological assistance where suitable.
For clients, this means disclosure can often be delivered more efficiently and cost-effectively — without compromising accuracy or compliance.
In complex commercial disputes, the question is no longer whether technology will be used, but how it will be used and whether the approach is robust, proportionate and defensible.
At B P Collins LLP, our commercial litigation team has practical experience of advising on and implementing Technology Assisted Review in Business and Property Court proceedings. We focus on ensuring that innovation supports — rather than replaces — careful legal judgment, and that disclosure remains strategic, efficient and court-compliant.
If you would like to discuss approaches to document review or disclosure in the context of a commercial dispute, please contact our Commercial Litigation team at enquiries@bpcollins.co.uk or call 01753 889995.
