Commercial disputes
CAT Collective Proceedings - Summer 2026 Update
Since our last update in the Winter of 2025/6, there have been a significant number of important developments in the UK’s competition collective proceedings regime before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). A number of key trends and themes run through this update.
Read moreUnlawful means conspiracy and directors’ duties: High Court clarifies scope in Lux Films v Fowler
In the recent case of Lux Films Ltd v Fowler & Andrew Fowler Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 963 (KB), the High Court found in favour of a small media production company whose shareholder and director had secretly diverted clients, confidential information and business opportunities to his own competing venture whilst remaining employed and in office.
Read morePlane parts, phoney emails and a payment to fraudsters; but who caused the loss?
In Logix Aero Ireland Limited v Siam Aero Repair Company Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 510 the Court of Appeal upheld a first instance decision that fraudsters' intervention in an email exchange that diverted payment for plane parts to their own account was sufficient to break the chain of causation.
Read moreWelcome clarification on the scope of legal advice privilege: Aabar Holdings S.À.R.L and Others v Glencore Plc and Others [2026] EWHC 877
In Aabar Holdings S.À.R.L and Others v Glencore Plc and Others [2026] EWHC 877, the High Court clarified that legal advice privilege (LAP) extends to documents created by, and communications exclusively within, members of the "client group" for the dominant purpose of seeking/receiving legal advice, including before a lawyer is engaged.
Read moreManifest error in expert determinations: Court of Appeal reaffirms high bar in WH Holding v London Stadium
Overturning a judgment of the Commercial Court, the Court of Appeal in WH Holding Ltd v London Stadium LLP (formerly E20 Stadium LLP) [2026] EWCA Civ 153 rejected a claim to set aside a contractually appointed expert’s determination, even where the Court may have ultimately disagreed with the expert's interpretation of the contract. The decision reiterates the high bar for challenging expert determinations on the grounds of "manifest error".
Read moreWelcome to the jungle: The Competition Appeal Tribunal rejects Amazon's strike-out of a new claim but imposes firm case management directions
A strike-out application by Amazon against a CPO brought by the Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) for damages to consumers relating to "price parity policies" on the Amazon UK marketplace, in view of the apparent overlap between this claim and two claims already certified concerning similar subject matter. The strike out was rejected by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has proposed firm case management proposals including for joint instruction of single experts alongside a pre-existing consumer collective action claim.
Read moreFiling deadlines - the CAT pounces
In September 2025, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) issued guidance note 1/2025 on filing deadlines. The language was forceful – calling out parties who fail to observe filing deadlines or who seek an extension of time very shortly before the expiry of the deadline without providing adequate explanation of why an extension is necessary. "Failure to file by the deadline causes inefficiencies," it said.
Read moreCAT Collective Proceedings – Winter 2025/6 Update
Developments in the UK’s competition collective proceedings regime continue apace with new claims recently issued in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Read our Winter 2025/6 update to find out more.
Read moreA penalty shoot-out? Not for default interest rates
The High Court in Houssein and others v London Credit Limited and others [2025] EWHC 2749 (Ch) decided that a default interest rate of 4% compounding monthly under a facility agreement is not a penalty, reversing its previous decision on the point.
Read moreMind the Gap: the Competition Appeal Tribunal rules on the approach to allocation of unclaimed settlement funds
The recent judgment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in relation to the distribution of unclaimed settlement funds following settlement of the Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited (SSWT) opt out collective action provides important practical guidance for legal and other professionals involved in opt-out collective action proceedings.
Read moreThe Court considers "greater practical experience" of expert witnesses crucial in assessing applications for the disclosure of documents restricted by foreign law
In Aabar Holdings S.À.R.L v Glencore Plc & Others , the High Court dismissed applications to withhold documents relating to criminal investigations abroad, on the basis that disclosure could lead to prosecution under foreign law. The judgment reiterates the threshold principles to be satisfied and provides useful guidance on the factors the Court will take into account when considering foreign law expert evidence.
Read moreImproving transparency: new rules on public access to documents in proceedings
From 1 January 2026, new rules will come into force in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court and Financial List with the aim of improving public access to documents in civil proceedings. The new rules will require legal representatives to add various categories of documents referred to at public hearings to the Court's electronic file, meaning they will be, by default, available to the public. The new rules are governed by Practice Direction 51ZH and are part of a 2-year pilot scheme aimed at improving transparency and open justice in the civil courts.
Read moreDust Settles in Favour of Industrial Defendant: Andrews v Kronospan Limited
In the recent case of Andrews v Kronospan Limited [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC), the High Court rejected a group nuisance claim brought by residents living near a major wood-processing facility in North Wales.
Read moreFirst of a kind: High Court grants injunction restraining enforcement of an English Court judgment
Recent High Court judgment clarifies the scope of the English court's powers to grant anti-enforcement injunctions and the applicable legal test for granting anti-suit injunctions
Read moreThe Competition Appeal Tribunal provides further guidance on "standard requirements" in CPO Applications
The landscape surrounding the certification by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) of applications for Collective Proceeding Orders (CPOs) (the necessary first step before a collective action can proceed to trial in the Tribunal) continues to develop as more claims proceed through the certification process and judgments are published. Now the legal principles underlying the certification of a collective action are better established, the Tribunal appears to be turning its mind to more forensic procedural management of this process, and establishing a series of standard requirements it expects proposed class representatives (PCRs) to meet in CPO applications.
Read moreDown and (finally) out: The Privy Council confirms the end of the Shareholder Rule exception to privilege
The Privy Council has resolutely confirmed the end of the "Shareholder Rule" exception to legal professional privilege – a decision that may have a significant impact on shareholder claims in the English courts going forward.
Read moreMargin calls in times of market turbulence
This case serves an illustration of the factors that the court will take into consideration when weighing up the competing interests of confidentiality obligations against the duty of disclosure, here under the rules of the disclosure pilot under PD 51U. The court found that confidentiality obligations owed to the IMF did not override the duty of disclosure. The court took into account both the scope of the confidentiality obligation and the relevancy and contemporaneous quality of the documents.
Read moreRPC traces the trends for LIDW25
With London International Disputes Week 2025 now wrapped up, we are reflecting on what it might tell us about the evolution of the disputes landscape.
Read moreCAT approves settlement in Merricks v Mastercard
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has handed down its written judgment on the application for approval of a £200 million settlement with respect to the collective action proceedings brought by Walter Merricks (the CR) against Mastercard, on the interchange fees charged by Mastercard. The aggregate damages were initially estimated in the claim form at around £14 billion. The settlement application was opposed by the CR's funder, Innsworth Capital (the Funder).
Read moreCourt of Appeal decision allows litigation funders to be paid first in collective proceedings
Two years on from the seminal 'PACCAR' judgment, the Court of Appeal has upheld the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) decision in Gutmann v Apple [2024] CAT 18, that it has the power to order payment of a return to a litigation funder before any distribution of damages to members of the represented class. The CAT will need to exercise final control in each case over whether a litigation funder's return should be paid before distribution to the class, and the amount of that return.
Read moreAnother blow for Italian regional authorities in Italian Swaps saga judgment
Shortly before Christmas, the Commercial Court handed down judgment in another one of the long line of 'Italian Swaps Cases', Dexia SA v Regione Emilia Romagna.
Read moreThe PCR's "heavy responsibility": CAT judgment in Riefa v Apple and Amazon emphasizes the high standards expected of a PCR
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) recently handed down an important judgment, refusing to certify the proposed collective proceedings in Christine Riefa Class Representative v Apple Inc. & Amazon.com, Inc. After two certification hearings, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it would be just and reasonable for the Proposed Class Representative (the PCR) to bring the proceedings following concerns relating to Professor Riefa's understanding of the PCR's funding arrangements. The judgment reiterates the strict requirements and high standards expected of a PCR.
Read moreGood reason or not? Court of Appeal clarifies rule on non-party access to court documents
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a non-party does not have a right of access to documents on the court record by default (Derek Moss v The Upper Tribunal). Rather, the non-party must articulate a "good reason" for wishing to obtain the documents, by reference to the principle of open justice, explained in this blog.
Read moreProtecting commercial secrets: High Court allows redaction of documents for non-party access under CPR 5.4C
In WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2024] EWHC 817 (Comm), the High Court examined the rights of non-parties to obtain copies of statements of case under CPR 5.4C. It decided that the appropriate balance between the interests of individuals and the public interest in the maintenance of open justice could be struck by the redaction of the monetary sums from the claim form should a non-party obtain a copy of the statement of case.
Read moreISDA Master Agreements
Banking litigation partners Simon Hart and Jake Hardy discuss the world of ISDA Master Agreements, close out mechanics and a rather opaque investment bank wheeze involving counter hedging strategies, which counterparties miss at their financial peril.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here