Specific Solutions
Finance And Economics
Manufacturing Industry
Entertainment And Media
Finance And Economics
Manufacturing Industry
Entertainment And Media
Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) in the English Courts: A Transnational Development Based on American Jurisprudence
Although the UK jurisprudence on technology-assisted review (TAR) has not yet reached the same level of maturity as the US, two recent UK court decisions – Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd and Brown v BCA Trading – demonstrate that the UK courts are catching up quickly and are gradually recognizing the advantages of TAR.
The Pyrrho case: a milestone for UK TAR
Pyrrho is the first case in which a UK court explicitly recognised TAR in a judgment, drawing on legal arguments from the US and Ireland (including Da Silva Moore v Publicis Groupe & MSL in the US and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Quinn in Ireland). Master Matthews clearly explained the TAR process in his judgment and emphasised its efficiency in handling large electronic files.
Basic process of TAR
TAR works by having experienced lawyers classify document samples to “train” the system. The system then automatically classifies the entire document set based on this decision logic and refines the results through further sampling and feedback.
Case Background and Decision
In the Pyrrho case, although some electronic documents had been reduced through preliminary screening, there were still about 3 million documents that needed to be reviewed. The time and cost of traditional manual review were obviously disproportionate to the amount of the lawsuit. Based on this, the two parties reached an agreement to use TAR to complete the disclosure with the approval of the court. Master Matthews listed 10 principles supporting the use of TAR, including:
1. Practice in other jurisdictions has shown that predictive coding software can be very useful in the right circumstances.
2. There is no evidence that TAR is less accurate than human review or keyword search combined with human review.
3. TAR is superior in terms of consistency to the traditional approach of multiple low-level attorneys working independently on documents.
4. The UK Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not prohibit the use of such software.
5. The current case requires an extremely large number of electronic documents to be reviewed (more than 3 million).
6. Manual review costs millions of pounds and clearly does not meet the requirements of reasonableness.
7. The cost of TAR is significantly lower than manual review, and it can be further optimized in combination with keyword screening.
8. Compared with the amount of the subject matter of the lawsuit, the cost of using TAR is acceptable.
9. The case trial time is long enough that even if the TAR results are not satisfactory, other methods can be explored.
10. The parties have agreed on the use of TAR, which only requires court approval.
Brown Case: Resolving Doubts about TAR
Although the Pyrrho case attracted much discussion, the decision did not involve the objection to TAR due to the agreement between the parties. This issue was substantially resolved in the subsequent case of Brown v BCA Trading.
Case Background
In Brown, the applicant objected to the respondent's use of TAR to complete the disclosure. However, the court accepted the respondent's argument that the use of TAR could save up to £200,000 in costs and was consistent with the majority principle in Pyrrho . Therefore, the court ruled that the parties should agree on the specific process of TAR.
British courts' support and influence on TAR
The UK courts are working to narrow the gap with US jurisprudence in the area of TAR. In recent years, the courts have actively encouraged the use of TAR in appropriate cases and regarded it as part of modern litigation management. This trend is in line with the core goal of UK courts in managing cases, which is to ensure that the process is efficient, fair and cost-effective.
Lawyers’ coping strategies
In the face of these technological advances, lawyers should actively familiarize themselves with and master the TAR process, otherwise they may suffer adverse consequences in litigation due to failure to comply with court management requirements, including high adverse cost orders.
TAR Solutions from Arrow Translation
Arrow Translation’s technology-assisted review service combines the most advanced technology with extensive legal practice experience, saving clients more than £1.5 million in costs. We not only have a powerful technology platform, but also have an industry-leading legal team, including:
Senior Advisory Team: Led by professionals who have worked as international litigation lawyers and are familiar with the legal systems of the UK and the US.
Intelligent platform support: Our TAR platform combines predictive analysis and automated review capabilities to provide customers with accurate and efficient document classification and review services.
Through these services, Arrow Translation helps clients reduce costs and improve efficiency in complex litigation while ensuring data accuracy and compliance.
in conclusion
As TAR becomes more popular in British courts, companies and legal practitioners need to fully understand the opportunities and challenges brought by this technology. By relying on professional TAR service providers, companies can improve review efficiency while reducing litigation costs and risks. Arrow Translation is always committed to providing customers with the most advanced language solutions and legal technology support.
For more information, please visit: [Arrow Translation official website](https://www.writtentranslation.com).
Arrow Translation : Provide seamless support for global legal needs, helping you succeed in the digital era!
