Aipedia: Quantity surveyors

AI-drafted adjudication submissions: risks for QS claims consultants

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-30

QSs acting as claims consultants or party representatives can use AI to draft adjudication referrals and responses, but every authority, clause and figure must be verified. Fictitious AI citations have already drawn judicial criticism, and in a fast adjudication there is little time to recover.

Part of: AI in quantity surveying

In short

Adjudications may be run by QSs and claims consultants rather than lawyers. Generative AI chatbots can draft referral notices, referrals, responses and replies from the records in hours. The risks are fictitious or misquoted authorities, as addressed by the Divisional Court in Ayinde [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), misread contract terms and overstated quantum, all of which damage credibility and the client's outcome. Under the RICS AI standard, a named surveyor must make a written reliability decision (4.2). PI usually responds to negligent claims work, but only if claims consultancy falls within the policy's professional business description.

How QSs use AI in adjudication

Statutory adjudication runs to a short timetable, and the referring party often has much longer to prepare than the responding party. QSs and claims consultants may act as party representatives, preparing the notice of adjudication, referral, response, reply and supporting witness and quantum material.

AI tools are attractive under that pressure. They can summarise thousands of documents, build chronologies, draft submissions in a persuasive style and suggest supporting authorities. For a responding party with days rather than weeks, AI can make it possible to engage with every point raised. The risk is that speed replaces verification.

The duties that apply

These duties apply whether or not AI is involved:

RICS AI standard section 2: members must understand that AI can produce erroneous output, including invented references.
4.2: a named, appropriately qualified surveyor applies professional scepticism and records whether each submission is reliable before it is served.
3.1: claims documents are confidential and commercially sensitive; get the client's express prior written consent before uploading them.
4.3: tell the client in advance that AI is used.
Rules 1 and 2: the RICS Rules of Conduct require honesty and integrity and acting within competence. Citing authorities that do not exist, even by mistake, engages both.

What can go wrong

In R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the Divisional Court addressed fictitious citations generated by AI and set out the seriousness of putting false material before a court. RICS has cited the judgment as a warning to surveyors. Adjudication is less formal than court, but adjudicators and opposing representatives check authorities and clauses, and a single invented reference can undermine an entire submission. Typical problems include:

Authorities that do not exist, or that say something different from what is claimed.
Clauses quoted from the unamended standard form rather than the signed contract.
Quantum assembled by AI that double counts or cannot be traced to records.
Submissions that raise matters outside the dispute referred, risking jurisdictional challenge.

Illustrative: a QS acting for a subcontractor uses AI to draft a referral. It cites several authorities, two of which do not exist, and relies on a clause deleted by the subcontract amendments. The respondent points this out, the adjudicator decides largely against the subcontractor, and the subcontractor says the QS's submission cost it the claim and its reputation with the main contractor.

How PI usually responds

A client's claim that its claims consultant negligently ran an adjudication is usually handled as professional negligence under the RICS Approved Minimum Wording, subject to the policy terms. A key question is whether claims consultancy and acting as party representative are within the professional business described in the policy. Firms that started as cost consultants and drifted into disputes work sometimes have not declared it. Loss is also argued: the client must usually show it would have done better with a competently prepared submission. Our guide to adjudication and PI cover covers both sides.

Practical controls

Practical controls include:

Verify every authority from a primary source and keep a copy on file.
Check every clause against the signed contract and amendments.
Trace each quantum figure to a record before service.
Build time for verification into the adjudication timetable from day one.
Record the named QS's sign-off for each submission.
Confirm with your broker that disputes work is declared on your proposal.

How Apex helps

Apex arranges PI for quantity surveyors and claims consultants, and a broker can check that adjudication and party representative work sits within your policy's business description. Related: AI loss and expense claims, AI in quantum expert reports, AI and payment notices, construction claims PI and the QS AI hub.

Sources

Frequently asked

Is it acceptable to use AI to draft an adjudication referral?

Yes, as long as the output is verified. The RICS AI standard requires a named surveyor's written reliability decision on outputs with a material impact, and every authority, clause and figure should be checked against primary sources and records before the referral is served.

Does the Ayinde judgment apply to adjudication?

The judgment concerned court proceedings and lawyers, but RICS has cited it as a warning for surveyors in dispute work. The underlying point applies to any tribunal: putting fictitious material forward damages credibility and can lead to serious consequences.

Is acting as a party representative covered by QS PI?

It depends on how the policy describes your professional business and what you declared. QS policies may include claims and disputes work, but it should be confirmed, especially where it forms a growing part of turnover.

What if the other side's submission contains fictitious authorities?

Check each authority from a primary source, then point out the problem clearly and factually in your response. Doing so can strengthen your client's position, and it shows why the same checks matter for your own submissions.

Check your PI covers how you use AI

Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Start a PI quote Request a callback

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.