The number of claims filed in the commercial court may have hit a five-year low in 2025 but, in other respects, the year was a success for the UK disputes market, with a number of key judgments set to define activity over the years to come.

Data from litigation intelligence provider Solomonic shows there were fewer claims filed in the commercial court in 2025 than at any point in the last five years, with the 361 claim tally down from 529 in 2024 and 784 the year before that.

In the CAT, meanwhile, 2025 was the quietest year since 2020, with 45 claims issued – down from 71 in 2024, and only marginally more than the 42 brought in 2020.

But it isn’t just the numbers that matter; as while claim volumes dwindled, the UK saw some big decisions that will shape the disputes market going forward.

‘At the start of last year, claimant firms will have been looking at the big thematic litigation and saying, it’s about time we got some judgments,’ says one disputes head, reflecting on 2025.

With new certainty emerging in key areas including group actions, the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), and litigation funding, here top partners and market commentators set out the rulings that mattered in 2025 and explain why.

Number of claims filed in the Commercial Court and the CAT, 2025

Taking jurisdiction: Município De Mariana v BHP 

‘There is an increasing willingness on the part of our courts to take jurisdiction over cases that historically they might not have been so interested in taking,’ says Richard Swallow, head of the disputes and investigations group at Slaughter and May, summarising a key trend of recent years.

‘The key,’ he continues, ‘is finding a jurisdictional hook, like a UK-domiciled parent company.’

2025 saw a major development on this front in the November High Court ruling in Município De Mariana v BHP, which held UK parent company BHP Group liable for losses resulting from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam near Mariana, Brazil.

The claim is valued at approximately £36bn, with a second-stage trial on quantum due late 2026 to early 2027. 

The decision was ‘seismic,’ says Ashurst UK dispute resolution head Jon Gale (pictured right), and ‘likely to mean that there will be more mass tort claims brought in England.’

CAT scrutiny: Merricks v Mastercard 

‘The Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) continues to be a very attractive jurisdiction for class actions, because of the opt-out procedure, which we don’t have in the High Court save narrowly for representative actions,’ explains Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer disputes partner Natasha Johnson (pictured right).

However, she also notes pressures ‘in relation to funding and an increased focus on costs.’

Ted Greeno, co-managing partner at Quinn Emanuel’s London office, makes a similar point: ‘The collective regime is still, 10 years on, in its infancy, and there remains uncertainty as to various aspects of the regime.’

This uncertainty has seen proceedings move slowly, with capital tied up for long periods of time – a particular issue for investors, given the high cost of CAT proceedings. ‘Cases in the CAT are ridiculously expensive,’ says Susan Dunn, co-founder of Harbour Litigation Funding and chair of industry body the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF). ‘The average budget is in the £20m-£30m range.’

‘Everybody involved decided to air their dirty linen in public’

These concerns over the operation of the CAT were thrown into sharp relief by the final settlement in July of Merricks v Mastercard.

The first large-scale opt-out action issued in the CAT, the claim was brought on behalf of a class of more than 40 million people, and alleged that Mastercard had imposed unlawful fees on transactions between 1992 and 2008.

This year it settled for just £200m – around 1% of its original value of £16.7bn, accounting for interest and inflation.

Funder Innsworth Advisors objected to the settlement and launched proceedings against class representative Walter Merricks, prompting Mastercard to offer to pay Merricks’ costs up to £10m.

One partner describes the affair as ‘outrageous,’ while another commentator says: ‘Everybody involved decided to air their dirty linen in public.’

Freshfields London and Dublin managing partner and antitrust litigator Mark Sansom (pictured right), who led the team that advised Mastercard on the case, highlights the impact of the decision: ‘It was the first settlement in such a big case that’s had to withstand such intense scrutiny, with another party in the room trying to throw stones at it.’ 

He continues: ‘The Tribunal is asserting a broad jurisdiction to look into the way things have turned out at the end of proceedings and, if necessary, revise the entitlement that the litigation funder has to a return.’

Certification questions: Evans v Barclays Bank & Ors, train tickets, and Kent v Apple

The opt-out class actions regime was further clarified by several decisions on certification. 

In December, the Supreme Court upheld the CAT’s denial of certification to an opt-out claim against a group of banks in the long running foreign exchange proceedings in Evans v Barclays Bank & Ors.

‘One key implication of the judgment,’ explains Sansom, ‘is that the Tribunal has more discretion than the Court of Appeal considered was the case to decline to certify claims on an opt-out basis if the merits are weak and if you have a class of people who are frankly big enough and well-resourced enough to pursue litigation on an opt-in basis.’

Earlier in the year, the Tribunal also dismissed three parallel class actions against train operating companies alleging that charging boundary fares to customers with travelcards constituted abuse of dominance. 

Keith Thomas (pictured right), securities litigation practice head at Stewarts, explains the background to the cases: ‘What some claimant firms have done is take what are fundamentally mass consumer claims and used the fact that the defendant has a dominant position to bring the claim within the opt-out consumer competition regime of the CAT, even though the behaviour complained of is not actually competition related.’ 

The decision sees the CAT draw limits on the range of consumer issues that can be packaged as competition claims to access the opt-out class actions regime.

‘We have seen some pushback from the CAT on claims that are more consumer-related in nature and I expect this will continue,’ says Ashurst’s Gale. 

‘The system is bedding down to become genuinely useful’

Many in the industry welcome the decisions. ‘It’s good that the CAT didn’t just wave damages claims through,’ says Therium Capital Management founder Neil Purslow. ‘The fact that some cases that are brought fail doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of the system.’ 

The year also saw positive signs for claimants. In October, the CAT found in favour of the claimants in Kent v Apple, ruling that Apple’s practices with its App Store constituted abuse of dominance.

‘From a claimant’s perspective you would certainly say it’s good to see,’ says Addleshaw Goddard global head of disputes Mark Molyneux (pictured right). ‘We’re 10 years in, and with that result we’re seeing the regime do what it was designed to.’

Dunn echoes this point: ‘It’s good to see some positive outcomes in the CAT. The system is bedding down to become genuinely useful.’ 

From the defendant side, Sansom takes a similar view: ‘What we should all want is a balanced regime where meritorious cases are able to progress towards trial and have their day in court, and claims that are frankly weak, and which are wasteful of costs and the Tribunal’s time, should be filtered out before they get into years of litigation.’

Reversing PACCAR

‘We’re seeing litigation funding being scrutinised, and coming out positively, with its benefits to public policy being recognised,’ says Purslow.

‘There’s been a cultural shift in the UK,’ says Pallas Partners founder and managing partner Natasha Harrison (pictured right). ‘Litigation funding is a big part of it. It’s fueling it, because the claimants can bring this litigation with little or no downside financial risk.’ 

However, in 2025 the funding market remained chilled in the shadow of the Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR decision, which held that litigation funding agreements that calculated returns based on a percentage of final damages constituted damages-based agreements, and were therefore unenforceable. 

‘The PACCAR decision led to a reduction in the use of the English and Welsh courts, and a concern that the UK wasn’t doing everything it could to protect its status as a venue for complex commercial disputes,’ says Burford Capital vice chair David Perla.

He continues: ‘While firms have figured out how best to navigate the multiples-based structure, a legislative fix is necessary, and we are eager for that fix.’ 

‘There’s still £2.5bn pounds of litigation funding in the London market looking for claims’

The Ministry of Justice’s December announcement that it plans to reverse the effects of PACCAR and introduce ‘proportionate representation’ to ensure fairness and transparency was welcomed by many across the industry.

‘Restoring clarity around the enforceability of litigation funding agreements is an important step for the UK’s globally respected legal system, and we welcome the Government’s commitment to providing that certainty,’ says Burford CEO Christopher Bogart.

With reform now back on the legislative agenda, most partners expect funding to become a more settled feature of the disputes landscape in 2026.

As Dunn puts it: ‘Removing one of the big factors driving instability is only a good thing.’

Slaughters’ Swallow (pictured right) estimates that there is still ‘£2.5bn pounds of litigation funding in the London market looking for claims’. At his firm, around half of disputes turnover now comes from defending funded claims.

Harrison is positive about investor appetite: ‘There’s a huge interest in legal assets at the moment. It’s an uncorrelated asset, and that’s very attractive to investors,’ she says.

[email protected]