Court rules in favour of predictive coding

The UK High Court has ruled that predictive coding admissible in court.

Court rules in favour of predictive coding
The UK High Court has ruled that AI predictive coding, allowing documents to be reviewed by machines rather than humans, is allowed, in the first contested application about the admissibility of such information in court.

Boutique firm Candey contested the accuracy of predictive coding by mega-firm Berwin Leighton Paisner, in a dispute where the two firms were acting on opposing sides.

According to Legal Cheek, the system uses documents already analysed by a human to then sift through many documents a high speed, saving money on pricey paralegals, which BLP said would cost too much and would generate a poorer result.

The court ruled that the system met the test for use of predictive coding set out earlier this year, a decision expected to trigger the use of predictive coding by more law firms.

“The technology will not only reduce the cost of e-disclosure, but also operates at a higher level of accuracy than a traditional human review,” said litigation chief Oliver Glynn-Jones.

“It also opens up new opportunities such as early case assessment, since it enables lawyers to quickly identify the most highly relevant documents at a much earlier stage than through a traditional review.”

Irish and US courts have already approved the use of predictive coding.

Recent articles & video

Ashurst, Sullivan & Cromwell guide Alcoa Corp acquisition of Alumina Limited

KWM snags Clayton Utz partner for ERS practice

Federal Court denies Medibank's request to restrain Australian Information Commissioner

Search for the best specialised law firms

Addisons corporate star commences with Keypoint Law

CIE Legal partner on lawyers needing to chill out

Most Read Articles

DLA Piper guides $9bn cross-border acquisition

Ashurst lures Corrs gender equality head

Gadens adds five partners in Melbourne, Sydney

Women’s Legal Services Australia executive officer on why gender inequality is still a challenge