As we begin 2026, we are reflecting on some of the key developments in the disputes landscape over the past year, including the changes to the civil procedure rules to allow greater access to documents before the court, the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in the motor finance commission cases and the anticipated changes to the law regarding litigation funding. You can read our summaries of those key trends below together with our thoughts on where we expect to see more dispute activity over the coming year.
AI
AI continues to be a hot topic. In 2025, we saw ever greater use of AI in all aspects of the litigation process with many firms deploying legal specific large language models in day-to-day work. Common applications include automated document review and analysis of disclosure materials, assisting with the drafting of key documents including correspondence and court documents as well supporting matter management. This continues to accelerate. The courts too are continuing to embrace AI and we saw further updates to the judiciary on the use of AI in the context of judicial roles in April and October of this year and updated guidance published by the Bar Council on the use of ChatGPT and GenAI.
We anticipate seeing more commercial disputes generally and specifically relating to tech-enabled fraud where AI is at the centre of the dispute (for example disputes arising from deep fake technology, voice cloning, authenticity of documents, fabricated content). AI itself is likely to be the answer to detecting whether a document is authentic or digitally created or altered, but where the documentary record can no longer be trusted, the courts will likely revert to greater reliance upon witnesses and the credibility of their evidence. Such disputes will acquire new complexity as they challenge the application of the usual elements of causes of action and both parties and judges will need to grapple with the application of established legal doctrines to new situations.
In particular there are likely to be novel issues arising in respect of AI liability and who is responsible when things go wrong. Many aspects of AI tools – the "black- box" issue (ie the idea that humans are unable to interpret the complex algorithms which sit behind AI output), the unpredictability, the multi-layered supply chain – make it difficult to apply traditional legal concepts and legal systems will need to adapt at unprecedented speed to stay relevant and fit for purpose. The approach to the liability issue will be shaped by case law and changes in legislation and regulatory regimes. The EU has already brought into force a New Product Liability Directive 2024/2853 which introduces changes to the existing strict liability regime to account for new technologies including AI. The Law Commission has launched a review of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which aims to determine whether the law remains fit for purpose and specifically whether the strict liability regime works in its current form in this digital age. In light of the developments in EU law, AI products may be brought into a revised strict liability regime under amended legislation following the Law Commission's review. In addition, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce has coordinated the preparation of an authoritative Legal Statement on Liability for non-deliberate AI harms under English private law which is now open for consultation. The overarching question that it seeks to address is in what circumstances, and on what legal bases, English common law will impose liability for loss that results from the use of AI. See our AI disputes in action series for more articles and insights on this topic.
Access to public documents
The new Practice Direction 51ZH – Access to Public Domain Documents came into force on 1 January 2026 in the Commercial Court and the Financial List. The pilot will run for two years. The pilot was initiated following the judgment of the Supreme Court judgment (and subsequent High Court ruling) in Dring v Cape. Those decisions confirmed that open justice obliges courts to give access to documents placed before a judge and referred to by any party during trial, except where there is a compelling reason not to do so.
The court may make a Filing Modification Order to prevent non-parties from obtaining copies of a document, waive or restrict the filing requirement, require documents to be edited or redacted before filing, extend or amend the filing period, or make such other order as it thinks fit. We anticipate that such orders will be sought and, in the absence of any guidance in the CPR Rules, it will be interesting to see what principles the court will apply in determining such applications. See our article for more information.
Class actions
The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) is currently consulting on the operation and impact of the current UK opt-out collective actions regime for competition claims. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced an opt-out collective action regime which meant that all those affected would be part of the proceedings unless they actively chose to "opt-out". Depending on the outcome of the consultation we may see changes to this regime which may impact the ability of consumers to bring such claims.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has launched a consultation to review the high-volume consumer claims, for example relating to data breaches, diesel emissions and motor finance commission claims. It consults on a number of issues including whether the consumers receive sufficient information about the claim and whether litigation funding is being deployed appropriately and in the best interests of the consumers. We can expect some new guidance for the SRA next year about the conduct of such claims.
There have also been some significant decisions under the collective proceedings order regime in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) most notable at the end of last year in the case of Michael O'Higgins FX Class Representative Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc in which the Supreme Court held that the FX class action cannot proceed on an "opt-out" basis. This is an important decision in the context of UK competition class actions as it confirms the CAT's role as "gatekeeper", highlights the need to protect defendants from the burden of weak claims and sets a high bar for "opt-out" certification. This may well affect the incidence of such claims going forward.
Fiduciary duties (motor finance commission)
The Supreme Court's judgment in Hopcroft, Johnson and Wrench on the topic of motor finance commission, found that the dealers were not subject to any fiduciary duty towards their customers. It did however uphold the finding of unfairness under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This led to the FCA confirming that it will consult on a redress scheme as part of the regulator's review into motor finance commission arrangements. We await to see the details of the scheme. The decision is bound to have ramifications on the landscape for civil claims in respect of motor finance commissions and possibly also other industries. See our article for more information.
Fraud
The recent High Court judgments in Santander v CCP Graduate School Ltd and Hamblin & Ors v Moorwand & Ors add new dimensions to the evolving legal landscape surrounding banks/PSPs' responsibilities in preventing fraud and recovering stolen funds. They reinforce the principle that receiving institutions have limited obligations to non-customers, even when those parties fall victim to sophisticated payment fraud schemes. However, as the recent cases show, victims of fraudulent schemes remain prepared to make creative arguments to find new routes to recover against banks/PSPs and we expect that trend to continue, particularly as new methods of fraud (such as AI enabled fraud) become more prevalent. See our article for more information.
Hague Judgments Convention 2019
This Convention came into force in the UK on 1 July 2025. It provides a uniform framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and the other contracting states, which currently include all EU member states (except Denmark), Uruguay and Ukraine. This includes judgments stemming from an exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. It goes some way to filling the gaps created by Brexit. We anticipate seeing more enforcement actions under this Convention in the year ahead.
Litigation funding
Following a review of litigation funding by the Civil Justice Council after the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR in July 2023, the final report was published in June 2025 and recommended (among other things) reversing the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in PACCAR through legislation and introducing a new system of "light touch" statutory regulation for funders. In December last year the Government announced that it will shortly introduce legislation to reverse the impact of the judgment in PACCAR. We await further details. Currently there is no indication of when it will be effective and whether it will be retrospective.
Shareholder Rule
The Privy Council in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and others [2025] UKPC 34 has abolished the "Shareholder Rule". This was an exception to the law of privilege that prevented a company from being able to assert privilege against its shareholders, save in relation to documents that came into existence for the purpose of litigation against a shareholder.
The decision may well impact the ability of shareholders to pursue claims against a company, where access to privileged material belonging to the company may have assisted. For example, in recent years we have seen more instances of shareholder activism particularly in the area of climate change. This may well affect the bringing of such claims going forward. See our article for more information.
Over the last year, we have seen a continuing upward trend in dispute litigation. We expect this to continue in the coming year with increased activity in the area of AI both in a legislative and dispute context. For a look at trends over the next few years see our Beyond the Horizon: Disputes Reimagined which combines insights from survey-based research, analysis of historic events which triggered disputes, and three powerful forward-looking scenarios to help general counsel and business leaders to address key areas of risk we believe they will face over the next decade.
