TCC Guide 2026: Building Your Case Early Has Never Mattered More

The Fourth Edition of the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) Guide updates practical guidance across the full life of a TCC case - from pre-action conduct and commencement through disclosure, expert evidence, trial, costs, enforcement, procurement, Building Safety Act business, and the use of AI. 

The practical takeaway is simple: TCC judges are likely to expect cases to be ADR-ready, disclosure-ready, budget-ready, and electronically organised before the first case management conference (“CMC”) not after it. For clients and their advisers, the better the early procedural strategy, the better the chance of controlling cost, preserving leverage, and getting to resolution faster. 

The most significant developments:

1. AI is now expressly addressed

A new section on AI makes clear that legal representatives remain personally responsible for what they put before the court, should disclose AI use where there is doubt, must protect confidentiality and privacy, and must independently verify any AI-generated research or citations. 

2. Building Safety Act claims now have bespoke case-management machinery

The Guide contains a dedicated section on Building Safety Act business, recognising that this is an emerging area. It requires BSA proceedings to be accompanied by a new Appendix L questionnaire. It also contemplates an early “Allocation CMC” to coordinate related TCC and FTT proceedings and, where appropriate, to have both heard by the same TCC judge sitting also as an FTT judge. This is a meaningful practical shift for fire safety and remediation disputes, where forum coordination and early procedural architecture may now affect leverage, timing, and cost more directly than before. 

3. ADR is now firmly embedded in case management strategy

The Guide reflects the post-Churchill landscape by stating that the court may order parties to engage in ADR and by emphasising that parties should be ready to address ADR before the first CMC and again later if appropriate. It also now includes a draft ADR order and a Court Settlement Process under which a TCC judge may act as settlement judge on a confidential, non-binding basis. One of the practical implications that flow from this is that parties will need a considered ADR position much earlier, and unreasonable refusal or poor cooperation may carry costs or other sanctions. 

4. Costs budgeting has materially changed for many TCC claims

For Part 7 TCC claims issued between 1 April 2025 and 30 March 2028, PD 51ZG1 applies and introduces simplified budgets using Precedent Z and, for lower-value claims, Precedent RZ. The Guide draws a distinction between claims above and below £1 million, with different approaches to whether the court will make a costs management order. For lawyers, budgeting can no longer be treated as a parallel exercise to pleadings, disclosure, or expert strategy because the court is expressly linking those questions and non-compliance can still lead to severe sanctions, including restriction to court fees. 

5. Procurement guidance has been updated for the Procurement Act 2023

The public procurement appendix expressly addresses the Procurement Act 2023, which applies to procurements commencing on or after 24 February, 2025, while earlier procurements remain under the previous regime. The Guide also emphasises short standstill periods, the need to move quickly to preserve automatic suspension, early disclosure, confidentiality management, confidentiality rings, and expedition where appropriate. 

Practical impact on clients and disputes:

Clients should expect more work to be done earlier in the life of a dispute, particularly around case theory, disclosure planning, expert scope, ADR, and budgeting. That front-loading may increase pressure at the outset, but it should also improve the court’s ability to control cost, focus the dispute, and avoid wasteful procedural drift. For clients in adjudication, procurement, and Building Safety Act matters, the Guide also reinforces that specialist fast-moving procedures remain a defining feature of the TCC, so early procedural mistakes can quickly become substantive disadvantages.

How we can assist clients:

We can help clients shape pre-action strategy, decide when ADR or early neutral evaluation is likely to be commercially effective, and prepare cases so that the first CMC is used to gain control rather than to fix avoidable problems. We can also help design proportionate disclosure, expert, and budgeting strategies that fit the court’s current expectations and reduce the risk of adverse procedural consequences. 

This article was written by Katie Braithwaite and Jessica Evans

The 2026 edition is the result of extensive consultation amongst the judges of the TCC and with a wide range of court users including the professional associations representing barristers and solicitors practising in this field.

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/technology-and-construction-court-tcc-guide-2026/