Unsurprisingly, there has been a great deal of interest in the judgment in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd & Ors, an interest which is not limited to England and Wales.
Xerox Legal Services are, of course, as concerned with developments in the UK as they are in the US and Asia-Pacific, given their presence in all these locations. Rachel Teisch of Xerox interviewed me about the effect of the Pyrrho judgment and the resulting Q&A is here.
The main points I wanted to convey are, firstly, that however important Pyrrho itself is as a public-facing statement, a judgment of this kind could have been made at any point, at least since 2009. The express references to proportionality in the rules, the terms of CPR Rule 31.5 from 2010, and the Goodale judgment of 2009 are all stages which paved the way for Pyrrho.
Another point which Rachel Teisch asked me about about was the common components of a predictive coding exercise whatever software tools are used. That gave me an opportunity to talk about the fundamental process points to be considered in any such exercise, starting with the question whether TAR is appropriate for any particular case at all.
Rachel Teisch also asked me about the the lessons which can be learnt by the US from the UK and vice versa. Nearly all the ten points helpfully laid out by Master Matthews at the end of his judgment are applicable anywhere including, as I said at the end of this interview, when considering cross-border discovery.