{"id":"AIBD-0832","title":"The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered technology assisted review for about 1.4 million documents that would take over 23,000 hours to review by hand","summary":"In December 2016 the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered technology assisted review for about 1.4 million documents. It said that manual review would take a junior solicitor over 23,000 hours.","date_observed":"2016-12-02","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","benefit_status":"intended","source_collection":null,"source_entry":null,"account":"McConnell Dowell sued three insurers over a natural gas pipeline that it had built in Queensland. The construction contract and an arbitration had generated about 4 million documents, which the company cut to about 1.4 million. Justice Vickery found that traditional manual discovery was not likely to be cost effective or proportionate. At one minute per document, a junior solicitor would need over 23,000 hours, or over 583 working weeks. In September 2016 the court referred discovery to a Special Referee, who helped the parties agree on protocols. All parties agreed to use predictive coding. On 2 December 2016 the court adopted the referee's opinions and said that it would order TAR. The judgment says that TAR is likely to reduce the volume dramatically. It gives no figure for that reduction, 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 classify documents as relevant or not, after learning from a sample that lawyers review.","system":"Predictive coding technology (TAR or Technology Assisted Review)","model_version":null,"developer":"Not named in the judgment","deployer":"McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (plaintiff), with the agreement of all parties","location":"Melbourne, Australia","domain":"Legal services / e-discovery","segment":null,"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Time","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, and the judgment gives no time or cost for the review with TAR."}],"ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court ordered TAR before the review ran. The 23,000 hours are the court's illustration of manual review, and the judgment gives no figure for TAR. Quoting Pyrrho, it describes software trained on a sample that a lawyer reviews."},"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial Court, Technology, Engineering and Construction List (Vickery J). McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2016] VSC 734, 2 December 2016. AustLII copy, read through the Internet Archive.","title":"McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2016] VSC 734","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html","date":"2016-12-02","written_by":"independent","quote":"McConnell Dowell has reduced the number of documents said to be relevant to the present proceeding from approximately 4 million to approximately 1,400,000. The use of predictive coding technology (TAR or Technology Assisted Review) is likely to dramatically reduce this volume and contain it further within reasonable and manageable bounds."}],"replication":{"produced_by":["The company scanned its documents into a searchable form and cut about 4 million to about 1,400,000.","A Special Referee helped the parties agree on protocols for discovery.","All parties agreed that predictive coding suited all of the documents."],"must_hold":["Questions of legal professional privilege wait until the predictive coding is complete.","The parties confer on a protocol for the review.","The case is large enough that manual review is not cost effective."],"echoes":[]},"paired_incident":null,"headline":"Victorian court orders *TAR* for 1.4 million pipeline documents","metric":"over 23,000 hours","comparator":{"against":"Manual review of 1,400,000 documents at one minute each","before":"over 23,000 hours, equating to over 583 working weeks","after":null,"basis":"assumed","quote":"a junior solicitor taking one minute to review and catalogue each of the 1,400,000 documents for relevance in an initial review exercise would take over 23,000 hours, equating to over 583 working weeks.","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html"},"later":{"status":"persisted","date":null,"note":"A note at the end of the judgment records that the court made the orders it had foreshadowed.","quote":"Since delivery of the judgment, Orders have been made as foreshadowed.","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html"},"value":null,"developer_country":null,"deployer_country":"Australia","unrated_because":"The court ordered TAR before the review ran, so the judgment reports no measured saving.","brief_notes":null,"brief":null,"revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the Supreme Court of Victoria.","source":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html","editor":"AIBD"}],"confidence":"found","shade":"high","claim_status":"Found by a court","claim_basis":"Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","case_jurisdictions":["Australia"],"profile":{"case_id":"AIBD-0832","catalog_version":"1.0.0","source_fingerprint":"d661ceb4ff74aaf60fe044ecabeca4b20ab75bc06b3ecee69db35a7348c7de50","collection_refs":[{"collection_id":"aibd","version":"2026-10-31"},{"collection_id":"querist","version":"2026-10-25"}],"source_ids":["AIBD-0832-source-0001"],"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":"McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (plaintiff), 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 ordered TAR before the review ran. The 23,000 hours are the court's illustration of manual review, and the judgment gives no figure for TAR. Quoting Pyrrho, it describes software trained on 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: one independent court document. 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, and the judgment gives no time or cost for the review with TAR."}]}},"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, and the judgment gives no time or cost for the review with TAR."}]}},"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: one independent court document. 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-0832-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: one independent court document. 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 ordered TAR 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-0832-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"The use was proposed. The court ordered TAR 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":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"later":{"status":"persisted","note":"A note at the end of the judgment records that the court made the orders it had foreshadowed.","quote":"Since delivery of the judgment, Orders have been made as foreshadowed.","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html"}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["later"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","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-0832"}},"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 Time"}},"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":"McConnell Dowell sued three insurers over a natural gas pipeline that it had built in Queensland. The construction contract and an arbitration had generated about 4 million documents, which the company cut to about 1.4 million. Justice Vickery found that traditional manual discovery was not likely to be cost effective or proportionate. At one minute per document, a junior solicitor would need over 23,000 hours, or over 583 working weeks. In September 2016 the court referred discovery to a Special Referee, who helped the parties agree on protocols. All parties agreed to use predictive coding. On 2 December 2016 the court adopted the referee's opinions and said that it would order TAR. The judgment says that TAR is likely to reduce the volume dramatically. It gives no figure for that reduction, and the review had not run.","benefit_type":"Reduced Task Time"}},"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, and the judgment gives no time or cost for the review with TAR."}]}},"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 classify documents as relevant or not, after learning from a sample that lawyers review."}},"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":"Melbourne, Australia","deployer_country":"Australia"}},"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 classify documents as relevant or not, after learning from a sample that lawyers review."}},"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":"2016-12-02","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the Supreme Court of Victoria.","source":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html","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":["The company scanned its documents into a searchable form and cut about 4 million to about 1,400,000.","A Special Referee helped the parties agree on protocols for discovery.","All parties agreed that predictive coding suited all of the documents."],"must_hold":["Questions of legal professional privilege wait until the predictive coding is complete.","The parties confer on a protocol for the review.","The case is large enough that manual review is not cost effective."],"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 Supreme Court of Victoria.","source":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html","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":"Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial Court, Technology, Engineering and Construction List (Vickery J). McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2016] VSC 734, 2 December 2016. AustLII copy, read through the Internet Archive.","title":"McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2016] VSC 734","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html","date":"2016-12-02","written_by":"independent","quote":"McConnell Dowell has reduced the number of documents said to be relevant to the present proceeding from approximately 4 million to approximately 1,400,000. The use of predictive coding technology (TAR or Technology Assisted Review) is likely to dramatically reduce this volume and contain it further within reasonable and manageable bounds."}]}},"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-0832-source-0001"],"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":"Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial Court, Technology, Engineering and Construction List (Vickery J). McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2016] VSC 734, 2 December 2016. AustLII copy, read through the Internet Archive.","title":"McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2016] VSC 734","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20251018042102if_/https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/734.html","date":"2016-12-02","written_by":"independent","quote":"McConnell Dowell has reduced the number of documents said to be relevant to the present proceeding from approximately 4 million to approximately 1,400,000. The use of predictive coding technology (TAR or Technology Assisted Review) is likely to dramatically reduce this volume and contain it further within reasonable and manageable bounds."}]}},"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 December 2016 the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered technology assisted review for about 1.4 million documents. It said that manual review would take a junior solicitor over 23,000 hours.","account":"McConnell Dowell sued three insurers over a natural gas pipeline that it had built in Queensland. The construction contract and an arbitration had generated about 4 million documents, which the company cut to about 1.4 million. Justice Vickery found that traditional manual discovery was not likely to be cost effective or proportionate. At one minute per document, a junior solicitor would need over 23,000 hours, or over 583 working weeks. In September 2016 the court referred discovery to a Special Referee, who helped the parties agree on protocols. All parties agreed to use predictive coding. On 2 December 2016 the court adopted the referee's opinions and said that it would order TAR. The judgment says that TAR is likely to reduce the volume dramatically. It gives no figure for that reduction, 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 technology (TAR or Technology Assisted Review)"}},"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 Supreme Court of Victoria ordered technology assisted review for about 1.4 million documents that would take over 23,000 hours to review by hand","headline":"Victorian court orders *TAR* for 1.4 million pipeline 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":["63f6be7a473bbdbbaeaf83276cb53d23c8be44c33ffe2029f1e35002bfbf7c81"],"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":"McConnell Dowell sued three insurers over a natural gas pipeline that it had built in Queensland. The construction contract and an arbitration had generated about 4 million documents, which the company cut to about 1.4 million. Justice Vickery found that traditional manual discovery was not likely to be cost effective or proportionate. At one minute per document, a junior solicitor would need over 23,000 hours, or over 583 working weeks. In September 2016 the court referred discovery to a Special Referee, who helped the parties agree on protocols. All parties agreed to use predictive coding. On 2 December 2016 the court adopted the referee's opinions and said that it would order TAR. The judgment says that TAR is likely to reduce the volume dramatically. It gives no figure for that reduction, and the review had not run.","replication":{"produced_by":["The company scanned its documents into a searchable form and cut about 4 million to about 1,400,000.","A Special Referee helped the parties agree on protocols for discovery.","All parties agreed that predictive coding suited all of the documents."],"must_hold":["Questions of legal professional privilege wait until the predictive coding is complete.","The parties confer on a protocol for the review.","The case is large enough that manual review is not cost effective."],"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":28,"reviewed":2,"reviewed_complete":2,"reviewed_partial":0,"record_mapped":26,"review_not_assessed":63,"not_assessed":0,"complete":false,"by_state":{"value_present":28,"not_reported":0,"unresolved":63,"not_assessed":0,"not_applicable":0,"withheld":0,"source_unavailable":0}}},"presentation_version":"240002893d8e2fcdf804eaf8e003dbfea52bea0eaeb3b6bc959c092af0d0a1c2"}