UK Judge Uses AI to Summarise Documents for Tribunal Ruling

Judge Christopher McNall of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has publicly disclosed using artificial intelligence to summarise documents whilst producing his ruling on a tax case. The judge emphasised that he verified all AI-generated summaries for accuracy and retained complete responsibility for the final decision-making, marking a significant moment in the UK judiciary’s adoption of AI tools.

Context and Background

Judge McNall, a part-time judge and barrister specialising in agricultural and tax law at St John Street Chambers in Manchester, made the disclosure in his ruling on VP Evans (as executrix of HB Evans deceased) and others v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1112 (TC). He explained that whilst he regarded AI as an appropriate tool for this “discrete case-management matter, dealt with on the papers, and without a hearing,” he did not use AI for legal research or any evaluative judgement.

The judge used Microsoft Copilot Chat, the private AI tool mandated by senior judiciary guidance for judicial office-holders through the eJudiciary platform. Unlike public large language models, data entered into Copilot remains secure and private when accessed through judicial accounts. Judge McNall stated: “The judgement applied – in the sense of the evaluative faculty, weighing-up the arguments, and framing the terms of the order – has been entirely mine.”

His decision followed the June 2024 practice direction from the then Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Keith Lindblom, which encouraged judges to make “full use of any tools and techniques that are available to assist in the swift production of decisions.”

Looking Forward

This disclosure represents one of the first public acknowledgements by a UK judge of using AI assistance in judicial work, potentially setting a precedent for transparency in AI adoption across the judiciary. The April 2024 updated guidance from the senior judiciary emphasised that any judicial use of AI “must be consistent with the judiciary’s overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”

Judge McNall noted that whilst judges are not generally obliged to describe their research or preparatory work, he felt it appropriate to disclose his AI usage in this instance. This approach may encourage broader discussion within the legal profession about appropriate AI applications in case management and document processing, whilst maintaining clear boundaries around decision-making authority.

Source Attribution:

Share this article