{"id":"AIBD-0830","title":"The High Court in London approved predictive coding software for over 3 million documents, finding no evidence that it gives less accurate disclosure","summary":"In February 2016 Master Matthews approved predictive coding for over 3 million documents. He found no evidence that it gives less accurate disclosure and judged it far cheaper than manual review.","date_observed":"2016-02-16","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","benefit_status":"intended","source_collection":null,"source_entry":null,"account":"In a claim that directors of MWB Business Exchange had breached their duties, the company's backup tapes held more than 17.6 million files. Removing duplicates left some 3.1 million. All parties agreed to use predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. On 2 February 2016 Master Matthews of the High Court's Chancery Division gave approval, with reasons on 16 February. He found no evidence that predictive coding gives less accurate disclosure than manual review or keyword searches with manual review. He judged that the software would apply a senior lawyer's approach more consistently than many junior reviewers. He put the cost of manual review at several million pounds at least. Estimates for the software ran from £181,988 to £469,049, plus monthly hosting costs. The accuracy finding draws on US and Irish cases, and the review had not run.","category":"benefit created","unexpected":false,"purpose":"A vendor that the judgment does not name built the predictive coding software to sort documents as relevant or not, after learning from a sample that a senior lawyer reviews.","system":"Predictive coding software","model_version":null,"developer":"Not named in the judgment","deployer":"MWB Business Exchange Ltd (second claimant), with the agreement of all parties","location":"London, United Kingdom","domain":"Legal services / e-discovery","segment":null,"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost","work_activities":["4.A.2.a.2","4.A.1.a.1"],"taxonomy_note":null,"registry_ids":{},"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":null,"reason":"The review had not run when the court approved it, so the judgment reports no measured saving."}],"ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court approved the use before the review ran. Its accuracy finding draws on US and Irish cases, and the costs are estimates. The judgment describes software that learns from a sample that a lawyer reviews."},"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (Master Matthews). Pyrrho Investments Ltd & Anor v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch), approved judgment of 16 February 2016. Find Case Law copy, a scan of the approved judgment.","title":"Pyrrho Investments Ltd & Anor v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch)","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256","date":"2016-02-16","written_by":"independent","quote":"There is no evidence to show that the use of predictive coding software leads to less accurate disclosure being given than, say, manual review alone or keyword searches and manual review combined, and indeed there is some evidence (referred to in the US and Irish cases to which I referred above) to the contrary."},{"kind":"court document","citation":"High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court (Mr Registrar Jones). Brown v BCA Trading Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch), 17 May 2016, para. 10, quoting Pyrrho para. 33 with its cost estimates.","title":"Brown v BCA Trading Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch)","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/1464","date":"2016-05-17","written_by":"independent","quote":"the estimates given in this case vary between £181,988 plus monthly hosting costs of £15,717, to £469,049 plus monthly hosting costs of£20,820"}],"replication":{"produced_by":["Removing duplicates cut more than 17.6 million restored files to some 3.1 million.","All parties agreed on using the software and on how to use it.","A senior lawyer reviews a sample of documents to train the software."],"must_hold":["The number of documents is large enough to make a full manual review unreasonable.","The estimated costs stay proportionate to a claim worth tens of millions of pounds.","There is time before trial to use other methods if the software fails."],"echoes":[]},"paired_incident":null,"headline":"English court approves *predictive coding* for 3 million documents","metric":"over 3 million documents","comparator":{"against":"A full manual review of over 3 million documents","before":"several million pounds at least","after":"£181,988 plus monthly hosting costs of £15,717, to £469,049 plus monthly hosting costs of £20,820","basis":"assumed","quote":"This is obviously far less expensive than the full manual alternative, though of course there may be additional costs if manual reviews still need to be carried out when the software has done its best.","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256"},"later":null,"value":null,"developer_country":null,"deployer_country":"United Kingdom","unrated_because":"The court approved the review before it ran, so the judgment reports no measured saving or accuracy.","brief_notes":null,"brief":null,"revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the High Court of England and Wales.","source":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256","editor":"AIBD"}],"confidence":"found","shade":"high","claim_status":"Found by a court","claim_basis":"Sources: two independent court documents. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","case_jurisdictions":["United Kingdom"],"profile":{"case_id":"AIBD-0830","catalog_version":"1.0.0","source_fingerprint":"33da7481c606203e5814ef19823fc4a07f6800bc528d87759d72606de9a1205a","collection_refs":[{"collection_id":"aibd","version":"2026-10-31"},{"collection_id":"querist","version":"2026-10-25"}],"source_ids":["AIBD-0830-source-0001","AIBD-0830-source-0002"],"families":{"strategic assessments":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"evaluations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"monetary observations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"institutional decisions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]}},"fields":{"actors[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"developer":"Not named in the judgment","deployer":"MWB Business Exchange Ltd (second claimant), with the agreement of all parties"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["developer","deployer"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"actors[].ownership_control":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_contribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"category":"benefit created","ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court approved the use before the review ran. Its accuracy finding draws on US and Irish cases, and the costs are estimates. The judgment describes software that learns from a sample that a lawyer reviews."}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ai_role","category"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].alternatives":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].assessor_date":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].depth":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].display_confidence":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"confidence":"high","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court","basis":"Sources: two independent court documents. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","interpretation":"Existing display rule preserved; the richer outcome-specific confidence question still needs review."}},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rationale":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review had not run when the court approved it, so the judgment reports no measured saving."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rubric_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].status_basis":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].target":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review had not run when the court approved it, so the judgment reports no measured saving."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"availability":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"brief":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_kind":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_links[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_links":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_strength":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: two independent court documents. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court"}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0830-source-0001","AIBD-0830-source-0002"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: two independent court documents. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","inferred":false}},"claims[].missingness":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].proposition":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"cross_border_flows[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"decisions[].action_outcome":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].grounds":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].institution_task":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].success_criterion":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"deployment_stage":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"classification":"proposed","answer":"The use was proposed. The court approved the use before the review ran.","scope":"The period and activity described in the case."}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0830-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"The use was proposed. The court approved the use before the review ran.","inferred":false}},"economics[].amount":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].costs[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].counterfactual":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].currency_price_basis":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].gross_net":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].measure_type":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].period_unit":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].realization":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].recipient_payer":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].return_payback":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].valuation_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"evaluations[].ai_uplift":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].comparator":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].design":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].effect":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].exposure":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].id":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].measurement_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].metric":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].reproduction_materials":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].setting_sample":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].uncertainty_limitations":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"external_references[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"follow_up[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"human_oversight":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"id":"AIBD-0830"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["id"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"infrastructure_dependencies[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiaries":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiary_count":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].benefit_type":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].claim":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"In a claim that directors of MWB Business Exchange had breached their duties, the company's backup tapes held more than 17.6 million files. Removing duplicates left some 3.1 million. All parties agreed to use predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. On 2 February 2016 Master Matthews of the High Court's Chancery Division gave approval, with reasons on 16 February. He found no evidence that predictive coding gives less accurate disclosure than manual review or keyword searches with manual review. He judged that the software would apply a senior lawyer's approach more consistently than many junior reviewers. He put the cost of manual review at several million pounds at least. Estimates for the software ran from £181,988 to £469,049, plus monthly hosting costs. The accuracy finding draws on US and Irish cases, and the review had not run.","benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].distribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].duration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].id":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].stakeholder_group":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review had not run when the court approved it, so the judgment reports no measured saving."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].status":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_status":"intended"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_status"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].tradeoffs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].unexpected":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"unexpected":false,"purpose":"A vendor that the judgment does not name built the predictive coding software to sort documents as relevant or not, after learning from a sample that a senior lawyer reviews."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["unexpected","purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"places[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"location":"London, United Kingdom","deployer_country":"United Kingdom"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["location","deployer_country"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"purpose":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"purpose":"A vendor that the judgment does not name built the predictive coding software to sort documents as relevant or not, after learning from a sample that a senior lawyer reviews."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"record_dates":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"date_observed":"2016-02-16","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the High Court of England and Wales.","source":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["date_observed","date_basis","date_precision","revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"replication.attempts[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"replication.conditions":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"replication":{"produced_by":["Removing duplicates cut more than 17.6 million restored files to some 3.1 million.","All parties agreed on using the software and on how to use it.","A senior lawyer reviews a sample of documents to train the software."],"must_hold":["The number of documents is large enough to make a full manual review unreasonable.","The estimated costs stay proportionate to a claim worth tens of millions of pounds.","There is time before trial to use other methods if the software fails."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"revision_history[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the High Court of England and Wales.","source":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sector":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"domain":"Legal services / e-discovery"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["domain"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].access_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].citation_locator":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (Master Matthews). Pyrrho Investments Ltd & Anor v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch), approved judgment of 16 February 2016. Find Case Law copy, a scan of the approved judgment.","title":"Pyrrho Investments Ltd & Anor v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch)","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256","date":"2016-02-16","written_by":"independent","quote":"There is no evidence to show that the use of predictive coding software leads to less accurate disclosure being given than, say, manual review alone or keyword searches and manual review combined, and indeed there is some evidence (referred to in the US and Irish cases to which I referred above) to the contrary."},{"kind":"court document","citation":"High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court (Mr Registrar Jones). Brown v BCA Trading Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch), 17 May 2016, para. 10, quoting Pyrrho para. 33 with its cost estimates.","title":"Brown v BCA Trading Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch)","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/1464","date":"2016-05-17","written_by":"independent","quote":"the estimates given in this case vary between £181,988 plus monthly hosting costs of £15,717, to £469,049 plus monthly hosting costs of£20,820"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["AIBD-0830-source-0001","AIBD-0830-source-0002"],"role":"Existing evidence items, in their original order"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"sources[].language":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (Master Matthews). Pyrrho Investments Ltd & Anor v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch), approved judgment of 16 February 2016. Find Case Law copy, a scan of the approved judgment.","title":"Pyrrho Investments Ltd & Anor v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch)","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256","date":"2016-02-16","written_by":"independent","quote":"There is no evidence to show that the use of predictive coding software leads to less accurate disclosure being given than, say, manual review alone or keyword searches and manual review combined, and indeed there is some evidence (referred to in the US and Irish cases to which I referred above) to the contrary."},{"kind":"court document","citation":"High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court (Mr Registrar Jones). Brown v BCA Trading Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch), 17 May 2016, para. 10, quoting Pyrrho para. 33 with its cost estimates.","title":"Brown v BCA Trading Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch)","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/1464","date":"2016-05-17","written_by":"independent","quote":"the estimates given in this case vary between £181,988 plus monthly hosting costs of £15,717, to £469,049 plus monthly hosting costs of£20,820"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].upstream_sources":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"strategic_assessments[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"strategic assessments"},"summary":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"summary":"In February 2016 Master Matthews approved predictive coding for over 3 million documents. He found no evidence that it gives less accurate disclosure and judged it far cheaper than manual review.","account":"In a claim that directors of MWB Business Exchange had breached their duties, the company's backup tapes held more than 17.6 million files. Removing duplicates left some 3.1 million. All parties agreed to use predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. On 2 February 2016 Master Matthews of the High Court's Chancery Division gave approval, with reasons on 16 February. He found no evidence that predictive coding gives less accurate disclosure than manual review or keyword searches with manual review. He judged that the software would apply a senior lawyer's approach more consistently than many junior reviewers. He put the cost of manual review at several million pounds at least. Estimates for the software ran from £181,988 to £469,049, plus monthly hosting costs. The accuracy finding draws on US and Irish cases, and the review had not run."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["summary","account"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].autonomy_permissions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].component_role":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].deployment_configuration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].inputs_outputs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_name":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].product_name":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"system":"Predictive coding software"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["system"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].provider":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"taxonomy_crosswalks[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"title":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"title":"The High Court in London approved predictive coding software for over 3 million documents, finding no evidence that it gives less accurate disclosure","headline":"English court approves *predictive coding* for 3 million documents"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["title","headline"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"version":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["060d34fd0f0748623e2671be70c99a2dce7b29806b7ef50fb9632dae81454037"],"role":"SHA-256 of the complete public record and its assessments"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"SHA-256 of the public record, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"workflow":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"In a claim that directors of MWB Business Exchange had breached their duties, the company's backup tapes held more than 17.6 million files. Removing duplicates left some 3.1 million. All parties agreed to use predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. On 2 February 2016 Master Matthews of the High Court's Chancery Division gave approval, with reasons on 16 February. He found no evidence that predictive coding gives less accurate disclosure than manual review or keyword searches with manual review. He judged that the software would apply a senior lawyer's approach more consistently than many junior reviewers. He put the cost of manual review at several million pounds at least. Estimates for the software ran from £181,988 to £469,049, plus monthly hosting costs. The accuracy finding draws on US and Irish cases, and the review had not run.","replication":{"produced_by":["Removing duplicates cut more than 17.6 million restored files to some 3.1 million.","All parties agreed on using the software and on how to use it.","A senior lawyer reviews a sample of documents to train the software."],"must_hold":["The number of documents is large enough to make a full manual review unreasonable.","The estimated costs stay proportionate to a claim worth tens of millions of pounds.","There is time before trial to use other methods if the software fails."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"}},"summary":{"total":91,"addressed":91,"known":27,"reviewed":2,"reviewed_complete":2,"reviewed_partial":0,"record_mapped":25,"review_not_assessed":64,"not_assessed":0,"complete":false,"by_state":{"value_present":27,"not_reported":0,"unresolved":64,"not_assessed":0,"not_applicable":0,"withheld":0,"source_unavailable":0}}},"presentation_version":"58f9bda7776c941c57c866ee9828cc98c0cffc0cae1658b21f8c25c0aad1f4e8"}