TCC Guide 2026: Key changes for construction and technology disputes

On 1 July 2026, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) published the fourth edition of the Technology and Construction Court Guide (TCC Guide), introducing extensive revisions since the last edition was published in October 2022. The updated TCC Guide responds to recent changes in litigation practice while maintaining the Court’s focus on efficiency, proportionality and effective case management.

This article focuses on some of the key changes introduced by the 2026 edition, including new guidance on Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) proceedings, a new section on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), updates to the court’s approach to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), revisions to the procedure for public procurement cases, changes to the cost management regime, new claim value guidance and expanded guidance on expert evidence.

The new Guide also contains wider procedural updates, including about adjudication business, arbitration, factual evidence, the treatment of cases outside London, disclosure, statements of case and interim applications. Practitioners should therefore review the Guide in full to understand its wider implications.

 

At a glance

• In London, the indicative dividing line between issuing in the High Court or County Court is GBP1,000,000. Outside London, it is GBP100,000.
• AI may be used but legal practitioners must remain mindful of their overall responsibility for work placed before the Court and their professional obligations.
• The guidance highlights that the Court can order parties to engage in ADR and will use this power where necessary and appropriate to do so.
• The new BSA guidance recognises the likelihood of parallel proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and High Court and gives TCC judges flexibility to manage and determine related claims where appropriate.
• The 2026 TCC Guide refines the management of expert evidence through enhanced guidance on the instruction of experts, expert collaboration, technical data disclosure and the provision of expert tutorials.
• For cases which are subject to PD 51ZG1, simplified costs budgets (in form Precedent Z) must be filed (unless the court orders otherwise).
• Appendix H reflects the coming into force of the Procurement Act 2023.

 

Key Changes introduced by the TCC Guide 2026

Claim value guidance

The TCC at the Rolls Building in London will consider transferring cases of up to GBP1 millions to the Central London County Court (section 1.3.2). This is an increase from the GBP500,000 threshold under the 2022 Guide. There is an exception for adjudication enforcement claims, TCC BSA proceedings and other claims with special features that justify a hearing before a High Court judge. For adjudication enforcement hearings, where the sum is less than GBP100,000, proceedings should ordinarily be commenced in the County Court (section 10.2.6). Outside London, the indicative dividing line between the High Court and the County Court is GBP100,000 (section 20.3.2).

AI

The TCC Guide includes new guidance on the use of AI at section 1.6. It confirms that AI may be used, provided legal representatives remain mindful of their responsibility for any material placed before the Court and of their wider professional obligations. Whether the use of AI should be disclosed will depend on the context, but any doubt should be resolved in favour of disclosure. Legal representatives must also protect the confidentiality and privacy of any underlying data, independently verify the accuracy of any AI-generated research or case citations, and be in a position to confirm that they have done so. The TCC Guide also refers to further guidance contained in the Guidance for Judicial Office Holders.

The addition of this section reflects a growing recognition by the courts of AI in litigation practice and, while expressed at a high level, is consistent with wider judicial guidance.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Section 7 of the Guide concerns the use of ADR. While ADR is encouraged in both the TCC Guides of 2022 and 2026, the TCC Guide 2026 highlights the Court's power to order parties to engage in ADR and states that it will use this power where necessary and appropriate to do so. This reflects the Court of Appeal’s decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 which confirmed that courts may stay existing proceedings and order parties to engage in ADR.

More generally, the TCC Guide places increased emphasis on the parties’ ongoing obligation to consider and engage in ADR throughout litigation proceedings. For example, at section 7.5.5 the TCC Guide provides that where an ADR process such as mediation has been unsuccessful, parties should give serious consideration to obtaining Early Neutral Evaluation.

Building Safety

The TCC Guide introduces a new Section 9 to deal with procedural issues that may arise from BSA-related proceedings. The new section recognises that BSA-related business is an emerging area, that the guidance cannot address all potential issues as case law develops in both the TCC and the FTT, and that there is currently no BSA-specific Practice Direction or claim form.

Section 9 distinguishes between FTT BSA proceedings and TCC BSA proceedings. It recognises that the FTT has jurisdiction to deal with Remediation Orders and Contribution Orders (under ss. 123 and 124 of the BSA respectively), whereas the High Court has jurisdiction in relation to Building Liability Orders and Information Orders (under ss. 130 and 132 of the BSA respectively).

The Guide notes that ss. 130 and 132 are likely to involve technically complex issues, making them appropriate to bring as TCC claims. It also states that the claim value guidance in section 1.3.2 does not apply to TCC BSA proceedings.

The TCC Guide allows for the coordination of TCC and FTT proceedings. It introduces a new questionnaire (in the form of Appendix L) which must accompany any claim forms and/or application notices in TCC BSA proceedings. The questionnaire is designed to inform the TCC Judge about the relevant building and any other proceedings or applications which have been, or are likely to be, commenced in the FTT or TCC, as well as the claimant/applicant’s proposals for case management where more than one set of proceedings is likely. 

Once a BSA claim is commenced, a TCC Judge will consider how this and any other proceedings related to the same building should be managed. This includes the option of holding an “Allocation CMC” where the Court will consider whether it is desirable for FTT BSA proceedings and TCC BSA proceedings to be determined at the same time and by the same TCC Judge (subject to the concurrence of the President of the FTT). An allocation hearing will not replace the standard case management requirements set out in the TCC Guide.

As with other proceedings, the parties should use ADR in relation to BSA proceedings, and the Court may order parties to undertake ADR.

Experts

The TCC Guide 2026 makes various changes to its guidance on expert evidence (now section 14). This includes guidance that:

• The permission of the Court is always required for expert evidence and calling expert witnesses. This is usually sought at the first CMC but can be sought later if appropriate.
• Parties may need to instruct experts at an early-stage and incur the costs of doing so, even if the Court at a later stage (when the real issues have been identified), limits the nature of scope of any expert or encourages the instruction of joint experts. However, the TCC Guide retains the caution which existed in the 2022 version against incurring costs on uncontroversial matters or where a single joint expert would be appropriate.
• For experts’ meetings, the topics discussed should not go outside the scope of issues identified by the parties’ statements of case. An initial, early-stage meeting between experts is encouraged to ensure they are addressing the same issues and they identify any common ground and ways of working.
• For expert’s joint statements, experts can share drafts with their instructing legal advisers, but these are for information only. The legal advisers should not engage in negotiating, drafting or revising the joint statement, either directly or through seeking to influence their expert.
• For expert’s reports, any spreadsheet or calculation the expert relies on must be disclosed to the other side in native format alongside the report. Where an expert's evidence establishes primary facts, that part of the expert’s evidence should be included in a factual witness statement and exchanged in accordance with the other factual evidence.
• Where the subject matter is especially technical or unusual, it may be helpful for the experts to provide the judge with a “tutorial” prior to the start of trial. This should be conducted relatively informally. What both experts say will not constitute evidence.

Costs Management

At section 17.3, the TCC Guide has been revised to reflect the introduction of a dual costs management regime, differentiating between claims that fall within the remit of the new Pilot Practice Direction 51ZG1, and those that remain subject to the existing costs management framework. For all cases which fall under PD 51ZG1 (which includes all Part 7 claims issued between 1 April 2025 and 30 March 2028 in the Rolls Building, the Leeds and Manchester TCC and the Central London County Court), represented parties must, unless the Court orders otherwise, file a simplified costs budget no later than 21 days before the first CMC.

The TCC Guide further differentiates between claims with a value of GBP1 million or more and claims with a value of less than GBP1 million. This revised approach recognises that a “one size fits all” costs management regime may not be suited to claims of different value.

The Court may impose sanctions for any non-compliance with the rules on costs management which may include limiting the recovery of costs to be incurred to the applicable court fees.

Procedure for Public Procurement Cases

In Appendix H (TCC Guidance Note on Procedures for Public Procurement Cases), the TCC Guide reflects the coming into force of the Procurement Act 2023 (2023 Act) on 24 February 2025 by distinguishing between procurements commenced prior to 24 February 2025, which remain subject to the previous regime, and procurements commenced on or after 24 February 2025, which are governed by the new regime under the 2023 Act.

While cautioning parties against undue delay, the TCC Guide confirms that, under the 2023 Act, a claimant has four months from issue of the claim form to serve it, rather than seven days under the previous regime. Appendix H has also been amended to provide for electronic disclosure, in line with the Civil Procedure Rules and to encourage ADR.

 

Key takeaway

The TCC Guide 2026 reflects the Court’s efforts to adapt to the evolving disputes landscape and reinforces its commitment to efficient, proportionate and effective case management.

Many of the amendments introduced by the TCC Guide reflect changes already evident in practice. Nevertheless, the TCC Guide provides valuable guidance for both parties and practitioners in navigating their claims before the TCC.