In a recent landmark decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in VP Evans (as executrix of H B Evans, deceased) & Ors v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1112 (TC), Judge Christopher McNall openly acknowledged that he had used artificial intelligence (“AI”) to assist in preparing his Decision.

Although the case itself concerned a disclosure application in a complex tax dispute, the judgment is noteworthy for the judge’s candid explanation of how AI was deployed.

Background to the Case

The appeals arose from a long-running dispute with HMRC concerning offshore trusts and related capital gains tax liabilities. The appellants sought extensive disclosure of materials from HMRC, while HMRC resisted aspects of the request on grounds of proportionality, confidentiality, and lack of specificity.

The Tribunal granted disclosure in part, requiring HMRC to produce certain categories of documents, while refusing others that were considered irrelevant or disproportionate.

The Tribunal’s Use of AI

Judge McNall provided a clear and transparent account of how AI was applied in preparing his decision. He confirmed its use at the outset:

“I have used AI in the production of this decision.” (para. 42)

He explained why the case was suited to such assistance, emphasising that it was a paper-based case-management matter without evidence or credibility assessments:

“This application is well-suited to this approach. It is a discrete case-management matter, dealt with on the papers, and without a hearing… I have not heard any evidence; nor am I called upon to make any decision as to the honesty or credibility of any party.” (para. 43)

He described AI as a legitimate tool, noting that this was his first decision using it and that disclosure was appropriate for transparency:

“I regard AI as such a tool, and this is the first decision in which I have grasped the nettle of using it … it seems to me appropriate, in this case, for me to say what I have done.” (para. 45)

He made clear that the tool was used only for producing draft summaries of documents, which he personally verified, and not for legal research:

“Principally, I have used AI to summarise the documents, but I have satisfied myself that the summaries – treated only as a first draft – are accurate. I have not used the AI for legal research.” (para. 48)

Finally, he underlined that authorship and responsibility remained entirely his own:

“This decision has my name at the end. I am the decision-maker, and I am responsible for this material. The judgment applied … has been entirely mine.” (para. 49)

Significance

This decision is notable as it is the first judgment in which a judge has expressly confirmed the use of AI in preparing a decision.

In addition, it demonstrates a growing recognition that AI, when applied carefully and transparently, can enhance efficiency in the judicial process.

Furthermore, it reinforces the fundamental principle that responsibility and accountability for decisions remain with the judge.

This approach accords with the Practice Direction on Reasons for Decisions, released on 4 June 2024, both of which encourage limited, transparent, and proportionate use of AI while safeguarding the integrity of the administration of justice.

Judge McNall’s remarks highlight a pragmatic balance: technology may assist with efficiency, but judicial analysis and accountability remain firmly in human hands.