The Future of Disclosure in Civil Proceedings: PD 57AD Survey Results and the case for Reform, Not Repeal

The Disclosure Review Working Group's survey results, published after its review of the operation of disclosure in the Business and Property Courts earlier this year, suggest that Practice Direction (PD) 57AD is at a crossroad. While the disclosure reforms introduced through the Disclosure Pilot and later embedded in PD57AD have delivered some recognised benefits, the overwhelming message from practitioners is that the current regime is too complex, too costly and insufficiently proportionate for many cases. The results suggest a strong appetite for reform, but not for a wholesale return to CPR Part 31. Here we summarise the key takeaways: 

Cost Reduction Has Not Been Achieved

The Disclosure Pilot, which evolved into PD57AD, was developed by the Disclosure Working Group “in response to widespread concerns expressed by court users and the profession regarding the perceived excessive costs, scale and complexity of disclosure”. In this light, perhaps the most striking finding is the widespread perception that disclosure costs have increased under PD57AD. Sixty-seven per cent of respondents reported that the proportion of total case costs attributable to disclosure has risen under PD57AD. Of those, 50% estimated the increase at between 10% and 25%, while a further 36% considered that costs had increased by more than 25%. 

AI and TAR Are Becoming Mainstream, But Practitioners Want Guidance Not Mandates 

The survey also highlights the growing importance of technology-assisted review (TAR) and artificial intelligence in disclosure exercises involving increasingly complex data sources, including emails, messaging platforms, smartphone data and collaborative workplace tools. Respondents identified a wide range of current and potential applications, including review prioritisation, privilege analysis, chronology creation, machine translation, identifying key custodians and querying document collections using retrieval-augmented techniques. 

However, while many respondents recognised the potential efficiency and accuracy benefits of AI-assisted review, there was little support for making its use mandatory. Only 33% favoured mandatory TAR or AI above a specified data threshold, while 67% opposed such a requirement. Instead, respondents called for clearer guidance on acceptable uses of AI, transparency requirements and appropriate validation standards. 

Front-Loading Has Shifted Costs Earlier in Litigation

The survey reveals a widespread belief that disclosure costs have become heavily front-loaded. Respondents consistently pointed to the work required before the first Case Management (a court hearing where the judge and the parties discuss how a case should be managed, set a timetable for the next steps, and decide what evidence or documents need to be exchanged before trial), particularly negotiations around Issues for Disclosure, disclosure models, custodians, search terms, and the Disclosure Review Document (DRD). 

The results indicate not just that more work is required, but that much of it takes place before parties have sufficient visibility of the underlying document landscape. The result is a process that can generate substantial expenditure at an early stage, often before the true scope of disclosure is understood.

The Disclosure Review Document (DRD) Has Become the Principal Target for Reform

The Disclosure Review Document (DRD) is intended to facilitate engagement between the parties and the court in defining the scope of disclosure and ensuring that any exercise is reasonable, proportionate, and cost-effective. However, it emerged as one of the most frequently criticised features of PD57AD, with respondents repeatedly highlighting concerns about its complexity, format, timing, and cost.

Yet the survey does not reject the principle of structured disclosure planning. Rather, respondents appear to support the underlying objective while questioning whether the current DRD has evolved into an unnecessarily burdensome mechanism for achieving it.

The Future Is Simplification Rather Than Abolition

Although only 19% of respondents agreed that the reforms have been a success, the survey stops well short of endorsing a return to the pre-PD57AD regime. Whilst 64% disagreed that the reforms had been successful, only 40% supported abandoning PD57AD and reverting to CPR Part 31. By contrast, 51% favoured retaining the regime with modifications, and just 13% supported leaving it unchanged. 

The result of this survey suggests practitioners continue to value features such as disclosure of known adverse documents, targeted disclosure, and early case understanding. However, they want a regime that delivers those benefits without the level of cost, complexity and procedural burden currently associated with PD57AD. In short, the survey suggests that the future of disclosure lies not in repeal, but in meaningful simplification.

Next Steps

The Disclosure Review Working Group is developing proposals for the simplification of PD57AD and expects to consult on a series of recommendations later in 2026 or early 2027, with a focus on reducing complexity, front-loading, and costs.

For more information about the law, technology and practice of disclosure, contact Tom Whittaker or Stacie Bourton.