Briefing

English disclosure at a crossroads: Survey results signal appetite for further reform

The Disclosure Review Working Group’s (DRWG) latest review of disclosure under PD57AD confirms the prevailing view of the majority of practitioners: while the regime improves on CPR Part 31 in some respects, meaningful reform is still needed.

By way of background, PD57AD was introduced on 1 October 2022 and largely reproduced the earlier Disclosure Pilot Scheme under PD51U. The pilot was introduced following feedback, including from clients using the English courts and, in particular, from the well-respected GC100 group, that the disclosure regime under CPR Part 31 was no longer working as intended and needed reform to reduce costs and simplify the disclosure process.

The DRWG’s comprehensive study of the regime sought views from all those involved in the process, and the results have now been published.

The survey, which ran from 17 November 2025 to 4 February 2026, was designed to assess whether the disclosure reforms had achieved their intended aims: reducing costs; improving the accuracy of disclosure; reducing the burden on the courts; encouraging greater cooperation between parties; and responding to developments in technology, including artificial intelligence.

In total, 215 respondents took part, including lawyers, judges and eDisclosure vendors with experience across a wide range of Business and Property Court cases.

The survey’s key findings, set out below, show that most of those engaged in the disclosure process hold similar views.

Key findings

Has the regime been a success?

The results on this point leave no room for doubt. Only 19% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the PD51U reforms, embodied in PD57AD, have succeeded, while 64% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Costs

Cost remains the main source of concern. 67% of respondents felt that disclosure costs had increased since the reforms took effect. 54% were of the view that the same disclosure exercise would have cost less under the previous CPR Part 31 regime, with the majority estimating a decrease of at least 10%.

This is notable as reducing the costs of disclosure was one of the principal objectives underpinning the move away from CPR Part 31. The front-loading of costs appears to be a significant contributor, with parties now incurring substantial time and expense before the case management conference stage, particularly in negotiating the Disclosure Review Document, Issues for Disclosure and search parameters.

Retain, modify, or return to Part 31?

The survey results do not support a wholesale rejection of the current regime, but they confirm that most respondents prefer targeted reform.

Only 13% of respondents supported retaining PD57AD essentially unchanged, while a clear majority, 51%, favoured retaining the regime subject to modification. Respondents were more evenly split on abandoning PD57AD altogether and returning to CPR Part 31, with 40% in favour and 48% opposed.

What can we take from the survey results?

Taken together, these findings show that practitioners are not seeking to discard the regime in its entirety but are questioning whether it currently strikes the right balance between thoroughness and proportionality.

Respondents identified clear gains worth preserving, including better tailoring of disclosure to the type and size of case, a sharper focus on relevant datasets, more methodical disclosure planning, earlier engagement between parties, and the value of lighter-touch disclosure models in appropriate cases. They also strongly supported retaining certain existing safeguards, including the obligation to disclose known adverse documents.

Survey responses make clear that the Disclosure Review Document is one of the most contentious features of the regime. Respondents raised concerns about its timing, format, complexity and the level of costs required to produce it. A majority, 55%, favoured a reduction in the number of disclosure model options, citing continuing difficulty in distinguishing between Models C (disclosure of particular documents or narrow classes of documents) and D (narrow search-based disclosure, with or without narrative documents) in practice.

Several reform themes emerge from the survey: simplification of the DRD; reduction or reframing of the disclosure models; clarification of the position on Model C and narrative documents; improvement of the List of Issues process; clearer cooperation mechanisms; and clearer guidance on technology-assisted review and artificial intelligence.

All of these point towards the same underlying objective: parties should be able to judge a disclosure regime by its ability to help them identify, collect and exchange the material that genuinely matters, at a cost proportionate to what is at stake.

The DRWG has confirmed that it will not recommend a straightforward return to CPR Part 31, and expects to consult on a series of recommendations later in 2026 or early in 2027.

Link to the DRWG survey report.