Posted: 05/03/2025
If the overarching theme of 2024 was continued uncertainty (Ten litigation trends to watch for 2024), 2025 already looks set to be another unpredictable year. Various doom-laden economic forecasts indicate that 2025 will be a challenging year for the UK economy. Undaunted, (and having let the winter gloom clear), this article lists the dispute resolution team’s highlights for 2025 as they gaze into their crystal balls to confidently predict the legal future.
2025 is the year to watch for restructuring cases, following significant Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, with more to come in the months ahead.
2025 looks set to be the year of restructuring cases. Judgment was handed down in the eagerly anticipated Thames Water Litigation [2025] on 18 February 2025, approving the company’s restructuring plan (for £3 billion) under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. Despite Mr Justice Leech’s reservations as to the costs of the interim fees, he was ultimately persuaded by the public interest argument.
Equally hot off the press, the Supreme Court has handed down its decision in El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025], ruling that section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does include transactions that involve assets that are not beneficially owned by the debtor. Further, the Supreme Court held that the broader interpretation of ‘transaction’ also applies to section 238 and section 339 of the Insolvency Act, which is positive news for those seeking to challenge antecedent transactions more widely.
Further growth is predicted in insolvency claims (see data from litigation intelligence platform Solomonic below) and specifically in cross-border insolvency in 2025. This is notwithstanding the recent Court of Appeal decision in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025], which confirmed that it was not possible to issue insolvency proceedings in England and Wales on the basis of an unregistered foreign judgment.
PACCAR continues to cast its shadow over litigation funding, but 2025 will place a judicial spotlight on both litigation funding and financing generally. The intervention by the litigation funder in Merricks v Mastercard Incorporated 7 Others over whether the settlement for a reported £200 million was too low was rejected by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which recently approved the settlement.
As with the PPI scandal, finance companies and banks are setting aside ever greater sums of money to cover potential liabilities for secret commissions following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Johnson and Wrench v FirstRand Bank and Hopcroft v Close Brothers [2024]. In a recent report, S&P Global analysts predict future claims could range between £5.9 billion and £44 billion. While the focus is on the motor industry, similar commission arrangements exist much more broadly, and the judgment may have wider implications. Given the significance of the decision, an expedited appeal is due to be heard by the Supreme Court in 2025.
The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) final report on changes in the funding sector, is now due to be published by 26 October 2025 at the latest. Some commentators predict the CJC will recommend a mandatory obligation to disclose funding. The team’s 2024 article discussed the proposed introduction of legislation on third party funding (following the widespread impact of the Post Office scandal), which fell away following the July election. The current government has confirmed no plans to introduce any legislation until the CJC’s final report is published.
In addition to the motor financing collective redress cases, further developments in the growth of class actions against banks are expected. In particular, the FCA’s UK Listing Rules (UKLR), in force since July 2024, suggest a move to a disclosure-based regime, placing greater risk on investors. Investors must now rely more heavily on the detail and accuracy of company disclosures. This may have a knock-on effect on future securities class actions claims brought by shareholders under sections 90 and 90A of FSMA 2000 against UK listed banks.
The ability to bring opt-out representative claims outside of the competition sphere will also be a key area to watch. The case of Commission Recovery Ltd v Marks & Clerk LLP & Anor [2023] has now settled and other case law (Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd [2025] and Wirral Council v Indivior PLC [2025]) suggests a representative action is not appropriate for all class actions. These decisions serve as a warning that the courts will not permit the representative procedure under CPR 19.8 to be used to gain tactical advantages.
Data from Solomonic shows that, although fewer group actions were filed compared to 2021 and 2022, the number of active cases reached an all-time high by the end of 2024 – almost doubling from 2020 levels.
The rapid introduction of DeepSeek serves as a reminder of the unpredictable nature of AI technology. Further clarity on how AI development will exist alongside UK regulation will be essential, particularly as the AI Security Institute’s focus appears to have shifted away from concerns about bias or freedom of speech and been replaced with a ‘renewed focus’ on crime and national security.
An increased uptick in IP disputes is predicted, elevated by article 43 of the EU AI Act. The act (widely considered to be the first comprehensive horizontal legal framework for the regulation of AI) requires providers of general-purpose AI models to disclose detailed summaries of any content used for training purposes. This includes any unlicensed third-party copyright works. ‘This is necessary to ensure a level playing field among providers of general-purpose AI models where no provider should be able to gain a competitive advantage in the Union market by applying lower copyright standards than those provided in the Union’ (Recital 106 of the act).
The UK government has launched a new consultation on copyright and AI and the considerations are expected to mirror the EU legislation in some respects. For example, the consultation considers imposing an obligation on AI developers to be transparent around the training data used. The ongoing litigation between Getty Images and Stability AI in the High Court will be one to watch closely. If future plans are to force AI developers to disclose their training model data, it is thought this could signal a significant increase in litigation by content creators.
The anticipated publication of the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) is likely to generate further potential claims as more sustainability-related information between corporates, consumers, investors and capital markets is publicised. Compliance officers will quickly need to get up to speed on the new due diligence and reporting requirements, including EU law, for example the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and also the EU Deforestation-free Products Regulation.
Overseas, the Hague Court of Appeal upheld Shell’s landmark climate appeal, specifically in relation to the specific emissions reduction which had originally been ordered in 2021. The court held that Shell does not have an ‘absolute [emissions] reduction’ obligation of 45%, or indeed any other percentage under EU law. However, it did rule that corporate actors do have a duty of care under Dutch law to contribute to the mitigation of dangerous climate change by reducing their emissions, including as a matter of human rights law. Shell, as a major oil and gas producer, has a ‘special responsibility’ to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Shareholder activism and its associated disputes are on the rise. However, the Court of Appeal decision in Wirral Council v Indivior plc and Reckitt Benckiser Group plc [2025] serves as a timely reminder that the court will continue to seek to strike a balance between the parties (particularly potential shareholder representatives with the same interest) and the overriding objective. In this case, the shareholder representative claims under CPR 19.8 were struck out on appeal. It was held that the court has an ‘unfettered discretion’ to decide when to permit such representative claims.
On a separate note, questions surrounding the issue of privilege and the ‘shareholder rule’ were considered in Aabar Holdings S.à.r.l. v Glencore plc & Ors [2024] in November 2024. Mr Justice Picken held that the rule ‘should no longer be applied’, and granted a certificate to leapfrog any appeal of his decision to the Supreme Court, although this was rejected by the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen if an appeal to the Court of Appeal is made.
There has been a marked increase in litigation risk for companies suffering data breaches. This is in part down to the recognised growth in group claims as set out above and the strength in numbers. Examples include the recent £3.1 billion compensation claim brought against Meta (Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others). The Court of Appeal in London has dismissed arguments that the Competition Appeal Tribunal erred by permitting an ‘unfair pricing’ argument and in its assessment of the ‘unfair trading conditions’ submissions. The long-term forecast is that data subjects in such claims will eventually succeed, in contrast to the established position in 2021 following Lloyd v Google.
The cybersecurity team has recently launched the latest edition of Dark Matters, offering a range of updates in the cyber security and cryptocurrency world.
Push payment fraud has spread to the digital assets economy. In D'Aloia v Persons Unknown Category A & Ors [2024] the High Court considered whether crypto exchanges could be liable for the return of fraudulently misappropriated cryptocurrency. Whilst the case did not reach an established position in this respect, the judgment confirms that the exchange had sufficient knowledge to find liability for allowing the fraudster to withdraw funds from its account. Had the claimant been in a position to provide more evidence on the movement of the cryptocurrency, the crypto exchange may have been held liable.
Elsewhere, there have been recent developments in respect of unknown crypto fraudsters. The specialist crypto team has written a very helpful review of the case of Mooij v Persons Unknown [2024], which deals with this issue.
Most cases settle prior to trial. According to data from Solomonic, there has been a 10% decline in commercial claims in 2024, the lowest volume since 2018. Except in rare instances, it is only foolhardy parties that do not attempt some form of ADR, but judges still do not think this is enough. The case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council [2023] first introduced the idea of mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and this was implemented and embedded in the CPR in 2024. The direction of travel appears to have been set, with additional cost consequences if ADR is not given sufficient weight by the parties.
In other ADR news, arbitration and expert determinations are gaining traction as effective methods for pursuing successful outcomes but normally without the same bill at the end. The implementation of the new Arbitration Act is welcome: amongst other things, it implements a default rule that – in the absence of an express choice – the governing law of the arbitration agreement shall be the law of the seat of arbitration, and empowers arbitrators to summarily dispose of claims or issues unless the parties agree otherwise.
Challenging times look likely to make for intriguing opportunities in 2025. Whatever the future, Penningtons Manches Cooper prides itself on providing specialist and cutting-edge advice to support clients as they seize such opportunities.
With thanks to litigation data and analytics platform Solomonic for the additional data and insights. For further information, please visit: www.solomonic.co.uk.
© 2025 Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.
All rights reserved.
Website design by Frontmedia / Dynamic Pear
Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC311575 and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 419867.
Return to news headlines 
