What happened
In an unfair prejudice petition, the respondents asked to give disclosure using predictive coding. The petitioner preferred a keyword search approach. On 17 May 2016 Mr Registrar Jones of the High Court's Companies Court ordered predictive coding. The respondents' lawyers estimated that it would cost about £132,000. They put a keyword search approach at £250,000 or more. The registrar believed that the keyword cost might reach £338,000 in a worst case. He noted that no factual or expert evidence contradicted the figures, and he reached his conclusion on cost. He added that nothing yet suggested that predictive coding would miss documents that a keyword search would find. He applied the factors that Master Matthews had set out in Pyrrho. He directed the parties to narrow the issues before the coding began. The disclosure had not been made, and the judgment does not name the software.
Sources
-
Court document, by authors with no tie to the system.
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court (Mr Registrar Jones). Brown v BCA Trading Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch), approved judgment of 17 May 2016. Find Case Law copy.
In those circumstances it has to be extremely significant that the costs envisaged for predictive coding are in the region of £132,000, as opposed to costs for a key word search approach of at least £250,000 (and indeed I believe that figure may even reach £338,000 on a worst case scenario).
Details
AI system
- Workflow
-
The respondents held most of the documents relevant for trial. The respondents' lawyers estimated the costs of predictive coding and of keyword searches. The court directed the parties to identify the issues and the categories of documents before the coding began.
Follow-up
- Conditions for replication
-
The parties narrow the issues so that the search covers the right categories of documents. Experienced solicitors on both sides agree on the criteria and the process. The parties can return to court if problems arise.
Entry details
- Sector
-
Legal services / e-discovery.
- Purpose
-
A vendor that the judgment does not name built the predictive coding software to identify documents for disclosure.
Not yet checked: model, release, provider, role, configuration, inputs and outputs, autonomy, human oversight, AI contribution, beneficiaries, reach, distribution and access, duration, every measurement question, every money question, ownership and control, dependencies, cross-border connections, geopolitical implications, replication attempts, availability, institutional decision, grounds, action and result, success criterion, every evidence question, observed or intended, alternative assessments, related entries, other identifiers, category mappings.
Cite this record
Peter H. Vartanian. (2026). Court orders predictive coding at £132,000 over a keyword search (AIBD-0831). Artificial Intelligence Benefits Database, edition of 31 October 2026. https://petervartanian.xyz/aibd/records/AIBD-0831.html (archived at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AADSII, version 4.0)