AI use in the courts – Evans v HMRC

A First-Tier Tribunal judge has used AI in the production of their decision - Evans v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2025] UKFTT 01112 (TC). 

The judge, seeking to be transparent, explained in a postscript his use of AI to summarise the documents.   Here we summarise the key points.

Suitability for AI

In particular, the judge considered the application before him was well suited to using AI:

This application is well-suited to this approach. It is a discrete case-management matter, dealt with on the papers, and without a hearing. The parties’ respective positions on the issue which I must decide are contained entirely in their written submissions and the other materials placed before me. I have not heard any evidence; nor am I called upon to make any decision as to the honesty or credibility of any party.

The courts are expected to consider modern ways of working to assist with swift production of decisions. In the judge's words: 

I regard AI as such a tool, and this is the first decision in which I have grasped the nettle of using it. Although judges are not generally obliged to describe the research or preparatory work which may have been done in order to produce a judgment, it seems to me appropriate, in this case, for me to say what I have done.

Guidance used

The judge considered the Courts and Tribunals judiciary published "AI: Guidance for Judicial Office Holders" (see our overview here)

The stated aim of the guidance was to assist judicial office holders in relation to the use of AI. It emphasises that any use of AI by or on behalf of the judiciary must be consistent with the judiciary’s overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. The guidance mandated the use of a private AI tool, Microsoft’s ‘Copilot Chat’, available to judicial office holders through our platform, eJudiciary. As long as judicial office holders are logged into their eJudiciary accounts, the data they enter into Copilot remains secure and private. Unlike other large language models, it is not made public.

How AI was used

The judge then continued to explain that they used AI to summarise documents as a “first-draft”, that the judge was satisfied of their accuracy, and he was mindful of the underlying principle of bringing their own independent judgement to determine issues.

This use of AI is consistent with a view that there is an opportunity for the judiciary to use AI, as reflected by their roll-out of CoPilot and studies on the matter (for example, see this research on judicial attitudes to AI).  It also remains to be seen whether and to what extent judges the example shown in this case, for example, when determining for what purpose AI can be used and what factors are to be considered.

If you would like to discuss how current or future regulations impact what you do with AI, please contact  Brian Wong, Tom Whittaker, Lucy Pegler, Martin Cook, Liz Griffiths, Kerry Berchem or any other member in our Technology team.  For the latest on AI law and regulation, see our blog and newsletter.

This article was written by Christian Wade.