Courts Rewrite the Rules: TCC Guide 2026 Drops AI and Building Safety Act Chapters on Industry

The Courtroom Just Got Digital

For the first time in the TCC's history, artificial intelligence has a chapter in the playbook. The 2026 edition of the Technology and Construction Court Guide came into force on 1 July, replacing the October 2022 version and landing on the desks of construction lawyers with the kind of quiet authority that tends to reshape practice within months.

The core additions are two-fold. First, dedicated guidance on proceedings under the Building Safety Act 2022, an acknowledgement that BSA litigation has grown into a category of its own inside the TCC and the First-Tier Tribunal, often spanning both courts simultaneously, and that the previous guide gave practitioners almost nothing to work with. Second, explicit rules on the use of AI in preparing court documents: a recognition from the bench that AI is already in the workflow, whether judges asked for it or not.

What the AI Section Actually Says

The AI guidance is short. It is also pointed. Legal representatives, the Guide makes clear, remain personally responsible for every piece of material they put before the court, regardless of which tool generated the first draft. That is not a technicality. It is the court telling the profession that AI does not provide a liability shield, and that hallucinated case citations or AI-smoothed but factually wrong technical summaries land with the solicitor, not the software vendor.

For contractors and their expert witnesses, this matters directly. Construction disputes are documentation-heavy by nature: programmes, delay analyses, defects schedules, Golden Thread records. AI tools are already being used to process and summarise this material. The TCC is not banning that. But it is putting down a marker that the humans signing off the output carry the consequences.

The Civil Justice Council has simultaneously been consulting on its own proposals for AI in court papers, so this is not a one-off. The direction of travel is governance, not prohibition.

Building Safety Act: A Court Framework, Finally

The BSA provisions in the new Guide address something the sector has been waiting for. BSA claims are legally and technically complex, routinely straddling the FTT and the TCC depending on whether the remedy being pursued is a remediation order or a damages claim. The 2022 Guide predated the Act's full implementation and offered no framework at all.

The 2026 edition changes that. It sets out streamlined procedures for BSA proceedings and addresses how parties should handle cases that require coordination between the two courts. Practitioners will need to approach the new questionnaire process carefully: the strength of the case made at that stage will influence whether matters are listed jointly or separately, with real cost implications either way.

For builders, developers and freeholders still working through defective cladding and fire safety remediation programmes, the procedural clarity is overdue. Many BSA claims have settled out of court, keeping the case law thin. The new Guide should help both courts build a more consistent body of precedent.

On Site: Gateway Numbers Moving, But Slowly

The TCC guide update lands against a backdrop of real regulatory pressure at the project delivery end. The Building Safety Regulator made 368 Gateway 2 decisions in the 12 weeks to 28 June 2026, up from 358 in the previous period, with the overall approval rate rising to 77%. For external remediation specifically, the rate hit 85%, well ahead of the BSR's own end-of-year 65% target.

That is progress. But with 1,505 live applications still in the system, and 63% of the live caseload now comprising internal refurbishment works with a median determination time of 28 weeks, the pipeline remains heavy. Gateway 3, the final sign-off before occupation, is also beginning to accumulate: 277 applications received as of 28 June, with the BSR publishing early performance indicators for the first time.

The court reform and the regulatory reform are happening in parallel, which is precisely the problem the industry faces. A contractor who gets through Gateway 2, hits a defects dispute in construction, and ends up in the TCC now has a better procedural map. The journey is still long.

The Branding Gap Nobody Talks About

The churn of new entrants into general building activity tells its own story about where the market is. According to AIBD analysis of Companies House data, just 1,140 new SIC 41.20 (general building construction) companies were incorporated in 2026-Q3, a drop of 78.2% versus the prior period. New formation rates that thin suggest a market pulling back from speculative entry: precisely what you would expect when regulatory compliance costs and Gateway delays are front of mind.

What those companies rarely do, whether new or established, is protect their brand through the IP system. AIBD analysis of UK Intellectual Property Office trademark data shows only 134 Class 19 (non-metallic building materials) filings in 2026-Q3, down 71.5% on the prior period. A striking 99.5% of active SIC 41.20 companies hold no Class 19 trademark at all. Source: AIBD analysis of Companies House (MC) and IPO (TMD) data, as of 2026-07.

For an industry being asked to demonstrate competence, accountability and auditability at every regulatory gateway, the gap between operational activity and brand protection is conspicuous. The firms investing in AI tools to handle Gateway 2 documentation are not, by and large, the same firms registering the intellectual property behind those tools or their own commercial identities.

What Contractors Should Do Now

Read the Guide. That sounds obvious but it is not routine practice in construction. The TCC Guide governs how disputes are run: timetables, expert evidence, document management, hearing formats. The 2026 edition is a material change, not a housekeeping update.

Get comfortable with the AI section before it becomes a problem in litigation. If your commercial team is using AI to draft delay claims or quantum analyses, your legal advisers need to know about it and to have a review process that holds up to judicial scrutiny.

And if you have live BSA proceedings in either the FTT or the TCC, review the new coordination provisions immediately. The cost consequences of getting the listing strategy wrong are real.