Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
The Technology and Construction Court Guide, Fourth Edition 2026, adds a section on the use of artificial intelligence at paragraphs 1.6.1 to 1.6.5
Correction, October 1, 2026. This article distinguishes verification-record advice from the Guide's express requirements, clarifies the non-exhaustive sanctions wording and removes unsupported claims about coverage and the forum for AI disputes. The original publication date is unchanged.
A court guide is not a Practice Direction and not a rule of the Civil Procedure Rules. But the High Court list that hears software and systems disputes has now written AI verification duties into its own procedural text, and paragraph 1.1.2 attaches a costs hook to non-compliance with the Guide.
Bottom line: A court guide, not a Practice Direction and not a CPR rule. Paragraph 1.1.1 says the Guide does not substitute or override the CPR or the relevant Practice Directions, and that it should be adopted flexibly. Its force runs through expectation and the costs discretion at paragraph 1.1.2, not through a free-standing rule.
Who this affects: Solicitors and counsel conducting TCC claims, in London and at the Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle centres. In-house counsel at contractors, developers, systems integrators and software suppliers. Expert witnesses instructed in TCC matters.
Issue date: Published 1 July 2026 per the judiciary.uk announcement page. The document is titled Fourth Edition 2026 and carries Crown copyright 2026. The previous edition was October 2022. The announcement expects counsel and solicitors to follow the Guide. It specifies no compliance deadline; later amendments have not been checked here.
What changed: Section 1 (Introduction) now carries section 1.6, The Use of Artificial Intelligence, at paragraphs 1.6.1 to 1.6.5. Four substantive paragraphs plus a cross-reference. The announcement says the Guide now addresses AI. We have not compared the 2022 text.
Analysis: Paragraph 1.3.1 lists computer-system and software claims among the examples that may be appropriate for the TCC. Section 1.6 separately addresses representatives' use of AI in litigation. Those provisions do not establish where every AI dispute belongs or whether the Court has already decided one.
Primary sources: Announcement: TCC Guide 2026 (judiciary.uk) · Guide PDF: TCC Guide, Fourth Edition 2026
- Instrument (EN)
- The Technology and Construction Court Guide, Fourth Edition 2026
- Relevant provisions
- Section 1.6, paragraphs 1.6.1 to 1.6.5; sanctions hook at paragraph 1.1.2
- Authority
- The Technology and Construction Court, King's Bench Division, High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Published with the approval of the President of King's Bench Division (para 1.1.5)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales, TCC claims only (High Court and County Court TCC lists)
- Status
- Fourth Edition 2026, announced July 1, 2026. The announcement identifies October 2022 as the preceding edition; later amendments have not been checked
- Bindingness
- Court guide. Not a CPR rule and not a Practice Direction. Para 1.1.1: the Guide does not substitute or override the CPR or the relevant Practice Directions
- Sanction available
- Para 1.1.2: if parties act unreasonably or fail to comply, the Court may impose sanctions including orders for costs
- Issue date / next deadline
- 1 July 2026. No deadline stated. The Guide says it will be kept under review with amendments from time to time (para 1.1.7)
- Primary source
- https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/46.20_JO_Technology_and_Construction_Court_Guide_2026_WEB.pdf
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm applicable obligations with qualified counsel.
Why we are covering a July instrument in August
The judiciary announcement dates publication to July 1, 2026. This article examines the AI provisions at section 1.6 of that edition; it makes no claim about how widely they were reported.
The contents list points to section 1.6, The Use of Artificial Intelligence, on printed page 9. The body carries paragraphs 1.6.1 through 1.6.5. Section 16 is a different part of the Guide and is not the AI section.
What the four operative paragraphs actually say
Paragraph 1.6.1 permits AI and locates responsibility on the human: "All legal representatives are personally responsible for the material they put before the Court and have a professional obligation to ensure that it is accurate and appropriate. Provided that representative are mindful of that responsibility and of their professional obligations, Artificial Intelligence ("AI") can be used." The grammatical slip in the second sentence is in the published text and we have reproduced it verbatim.
Paragraph 1.6.2 handles disclosure. "Whether and to what extent legal representatives should disclose their use of AI will depend on the context. However, any doubt as to whether the fact that AI has been used should be mentioned must be resolved in favour of disclosing such use." Read the two sentences together before you build a policy on them. The first makes disclosure contextual. The second is the only mandatory verb in the paragraph, and what it makes mandatory is the direction in which you resolve doubt, not disclosure itself.
Paragraph 1.6.3 covers data: "Legal representatives must at all times uphold the confidentiality of and protect the privacy of any underlying data in relation to which Artificial Intelligence is used." Paragraph 1.6.4 is the verification duty, and it has two limbs: "Legal representatives must independently verify the accuracy of any research or case citations that have been generated with the assistance of AI and must be in a position to confirm that they have done so."
Paragraph 1.6.4 requires both verification and the ability to confirm it. Keeping a verification record is a practical way to support that confirmation. The paragraph does not prescribe a record format or retention period.
Paragraph 1.6.5 is a cross-reference only. It points readers to Artificial Intelligence (AI): Guidance for Judicial Office Holders dated 31 October 2025 for further guidance. That completes section 1.6. This review does not extend the cross-reference into a separate analysis of the October 2025 document.
Mandatory disclosure, or a tie-break rule
The distinction matters enough to state precisely, because it is easy to summarise wrongly in either direction.
The Guide does not require you to disclose AI use in every filing. Paragraph 1.6.2 opens by saying that whether and to what extent you should disclose depends on the context. What the paragraph does is remove your discretion at the point of uncertainty. If you are unsure whether the fact of AI use should be mentioned, the Guide says that doubt must be resolved in favour of disclosing.
For a matter involving AI-assisted work, assess the context and follow the express instruction to resolve doubt in favour of disclosure. The paragraph does not provide a universal disclosure form or list of circumstances.
The costs hook, and what a court guide can and cannot do
The AI section has no sanction of its own. The sanction lives in the Purpose of Guide section, at paragraph 1.1.2, which reads: "The TCC Guide is designed to ensure effective management of proceedings in the TCC. The parties, their solicitors and counsel are expected to co-operate, and to follow both the letter and spirit of the Guide. If parties act unreasonably or fail to comply with these requirements, the Court may impose sanctions including orders for costs." We character-matched that against the PDF and confirmed the paragraph number.
The Court may impose sanctions, and orders for costs are an included example. The paragraph does not provide an exhaustive list. This article has not reviewed the separate legal bases for particular sanctions or their application to a case.
This is also where the instrument type does real work. A court guide is not a Practice Direction and not a rule of the CPR. Paragraph 1.1.1 says the Guide does not substitute or override the CPR or the relevant Practice Directions, and that it should be seen as guidance to be adopted flexibly and adapted as appropriate to the particular case. Paragraph 1.1.5 records that it is published with the approval of the President of King's Bench Division and prepared in consultation with the TCC judges and with TECBAR, TeCSA, the Society for Construction Law and the Society for Computers and Law.
Read the AI provisions with the Guide's stated status and general compliance paragraph. They set expectations for representatives, while the availability and exercise of a particular sanction require case-specific analysis. The text does not justify a comparative claim about the practical strength of guides and Practice Directions.
Why this list, and not another one
The TCC's declared subject matter is set out at paragraph 1.3.1, and the list is worth reading if you sell or buy software. It includes, at item (g), claims relating to the design, supply and installation of computer systems, computer software and related network systems, including BIM systems. It also covers energy disputes, public procurement claims under the Procurement Act 2023, and claims against engineers, architects, surveyors and other specialised advisers relating to the services they provide.
Paragraph 1.3.1 describes examples of claims that may be appropriate for the TCC and states that the list is not exhaustive. Whether a particular AI-related dispute belongs there depends on the claim and applicable procedural requirements; the software example alone does not decide that question.
One limit worth stating, because it constrains how far you can carry the analogy. Section 1.6 addresses AI used by legal representatives in the conduct of litigation. It is not a standard for AI systems in evidence, and it is not a case management regime for disputes about AI products. We searched the full text of the Guide for AI and artificial intelligence: outside section 1.6 there are no other occurrences, including in the sections on expert evidence and disclosure. Anyone expecting a TCC protocol for expert evidence about model behaviour will not find it in this edition.
This is not the October 2025 judicial guidance
The Guide cross-refers to a separate document for judicial office holders.
Paragraph 1.6.5 identifies Artificial Intelligence (AI): Guidance for Judicial Office Holders, dated October 31, 2025, as a source of further guidance. We have not read that separate document for this update and do not determine its complete scope here.
Section 1.6 expressly addresses legal representatives. Its cross-reference should be kept distinct from its own wording when citing the source of a requirement.
One further boundary. This Guide governs TCC claims. Its AI provisions address TCC proceedings, and we make no claim that they bind the Commercial Court, the Chancery Division, the County Court outside the TCC lists, or any tribunal. Paragraph 1.1.6 notes that work has been done to align this Guide with the Commercial Court Guide and the Chancery Guide where practices should be substantially the same, which is a statement about drafting alignment, not about the reach of this text.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the judiciary.uk announcement page for the TCC Guide 2026, which states that the Guide has been published today (1 July 2026); and the full Guide PDF at judiciary.uk, from which we extracted the complete text and read the contents list, section 1.1, section 1.3.1 and section 1.6 in the body. Every quotation in this piece was character-matched against that extracted text. The section number dispute in our notes was resolved from the document: it is 1.6, paragraphs 1.6.1 to 1.6.5.
What we did not open: the October 2022 third edition, so our statement that the AI section is new rests on the judiciary.uk announcement, which says the Guide now addresses the use of Artificial Intelligence, and not on a diff of the two editions. We did not open the October 2025 judicial guidance for this piece, the consultation responses from TECBAR or TeCSA, CPR Part 60 or its Practice Direction, or any judgment applying paragraph 1.6.
This review does not establish the outcome of any case applying section 1.6, the present amendment status of the Guide or the availability of a particular sanction beyond its wording. No systematic case-law search was conducted. Section 1.6 addresses representatives' use of AI and does not itself prescribe standards for AI products in dispute.
Independently verify AI-assisted research and citations and be ready to confirm the checks. A retained verification record is practical advice, not a prescribed format or retention duty in paragraph 1.6.4. Assess disclosure in context and resolve doubt in favour of disclosing, as paragraph 1.6.2 directs. Paragraph 1.1.2 allows sanctions including costs orders.
Source File
Open the Guide PDF at judiciary.uk and go to the contents list, where section 1.6, The Use of Artificial Intelligence, is listed at page 9. Turn to that page and confirm paragraphs 1.6.1 to 1.6.5 read as quoted here. Then go back to page 1 for paragraph 1.1.2 and confirm the sanctions sentence. Confirm the 1 July 2026 date on the judiciary.uk announcement page, and confirm the edition line, Fourth Edition 2026, on the PDF cover.
Legal representatives must independently verify the accuracy of any research or case citations that have been generated with the assistance of AI and must be in a position to confirm that they have done so. - The Technology and Construction Court Guide, Fourth Edition 2026, para 1.6.4, published 1 July 2026
FAQ
Is the AI section at 1.6 or at section 16?
It is 1.6. The Guide's contents list shows 1.6 The Use of Artificial Intelligence at page 9, within Section 1 (Introduction), and the body text at that page runs from paragraph 1.6.1 to paragraph 1.6.5. There is no AI section at Section 16.
Do I have to tell the TCC that I used AI?
Not in every case. Paragraph 1.6.2 says whether and to what extent legal representatives should disclose their use of AI will depend on the context. What is mandatory is the tie-break: any doubt as to whether the fact of AI use should be mentioned must be resolved in favour of disclosing it.
What can the court actually do if a representative ignores section 1.6?
Paragraph 1.1.2 says the Court may impose sanctions including orders for costs if parties act unreasonably or fail to comply with the stated requirements. Costs are an included example, not an exhaustive sanctions list. The basis and application of any particular sanction need separate analysis.
Is this the same as the judicial AI guidance from October 2025?
They are separate documents. TCC Guide section 1.6 addresses legal representatives and paragraph 1.6.5 cross-refers to the October 2025 judicial guidance. That separate document was not reviewed for this update, so this article does not determine all of its requirements.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.