1. What is the current legal landscape for litigation in your jurisdiction?

England and Wales is expected to maintain its position as a leading jurisdiction for cross-border and domestic disputes over the coming years.

The growth of group claims continues to represent a significant risk for many businesses operating in the jurisdiction, due to readily available litigation funding, the presence of active and innovative claimant-side law firms, and a willingness by the courts to entertain (at least at the early stages of litigation) claims arising from acts alleged to have taken place outside of the jurisdiction. While group claims continue apace in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (where class representatives can benefit from the “opt-out” collective proceedings regime), we have also seen significant growth in securities litigation under section 90 and section 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as well as mass tort, bribery and fraud claims, particularly targeting London headquartered groups for the acts of overseas subsidiaries and their supply chain partners.  AI and technology-related claims – whether brought on a group or individual basis –  are also on the rise.

The litigation funding market is currently a major talking point, particularly following the publication of the Civil Justice Council’s Final Report earlier this year. The sector is watching closely to see whether the report’s recommendations—such as the potential regulation of litigation funders and broader judicial powers to manage the costs of funded claims—will be implemented. Discussions also continue as to the possible expansion and evolution of the collective proceedings regime (as referred to above), potentially to the areas of consumer law and data protection.

Finally, the disputes landscape is being shaped by global forces such as tariffs, international supply chains, sanctions, and geopolitical unrest, all of which have the potential to generate new and complex litigation across multiple sectors.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in litigation matters?

The first piece of advice is to explore alternatives to litigation. A deal on the right terms is often the best result.  This means taking into account the bigger picture. It may make short term sense to sue a supplier or joint venture partner that has not performed, but if that supplier or partner is key to the business’ long term prospects then a negotiated deal may sometimes resolve matters and help prevent future disputes.

Sometimes a deal is not feasible, especially if the client has been wronged and the other party is unwilling to make amends.  In those circumstances, the most important thing is to have a clear and open dialogue with stakeholders in the business and the legal advisors about the strategy for the litigation and likely costs of pursuing that strategy and timescales.  Litigation will rarely go exactly as planned, but if there is a strong shared vision of what you want to achieve by when, then it is more likely that you will achieve that goal without unnecessary (and potentially expensive) distractions or detours.

Clients can also seek to protect themselves from litigation by conducting regular risk assessments, staying on top of current trends and taking proactive steps to mitigate the risks.  As part of this, clients should be prepared for the possibility of larger and more novel claims, as there is clear continued appetite in the market for significant tort, bribery, environmental, securities and competition-related litigation, often with a cross-border dimension. Claimant law firms are advancing creative arguments, particularly in the competition space to leverage the opt-out regime when traditionally the claims would have been brought as a consumer rights infringement (if at all). A potential constraint on this trend is the availability of litigation funding and judicial decisions expected imminently on, for example, the scope of abuse of dominance claims and parent company liability for alleged mass torts overseas.

It is also increasingly important to consider how the client uses artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies.  Whilst these can open up new areas of business and achieve efficiencies and other benefits, they also introduce new risks to businesses of potential claims or regulatory investigation which need to be considered carefully. This includes thinking ahead about potential contractual disputes, questions of intellectual proprietary and privacy rights – both protecting existing rights and ensuring the business is not infringing others’ rights –  and mitigating the reputational and regulatory risks of so-called ‘AI-washing’, where overstating AI capabilities could trigger investor liability, transparency breaches, or fines from regulators.

As litigation risks generally show no sign of slowing down, it is as crucial as ever to make strategic use of alternative dispute resolution at key stages. Employing ADR at the right moments can help manage risk, control costs, and potentially achieve more favourable outcomes without the need for a full trial.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in litigation in the next 12 months?

The greatest threats are those addressed above which clients should prepare for as far as possible.  ESG and sustainability claims are still on the rise, with claimants deploying novel legal arguments to advance their cases—particularly in areas such as environmental harm and supply chain concerns. The intersection of AI with litigation is also becoming more pronounced, as disputes emerge around contractual obligations, the use of AI in business processes, and privacy concerns, often overlapping with cyber-related incidents.

On the opportunity front, the litigation funding market is closely monitoring several high-profile, funded cases currently awaiting judgment. The outcomes of these matters could materially influence funders’ appetite and reshape the landscape for large-scale, innovative claims. We are currently acting in a number of these cases, including the BHP Samarco litigation and the Gutmann Trains claims. A similar dynamic played out ahead of the Supreme Court’s motor finance judgment, where we acted for Close Brothers on its successful appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding whether credit brokers owed a duty to their customers and which (prior to being overturned by the Supreme Court) had the potential to increase exposure for participants in the car financing sector.

Over the next 12 months, we expect to see both emerging risks and fresh opportunities for creative, high-value litigation, as courts, funders, and policymakers respond to these evolving challenges.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Maintaining high levels of client satisfaction in our litigation practice starts with building consistent, long-term relationships. We invest time in embedding ourselves within client teams, gaining a deep understanding of their commercial priorities, internal pressures, and brand values. This also allows us to offer bespoke, value-added services that are responsive to their needs—particularly important in an environment where in-house legal teams are under increasing pressure to manage spend and demonstrate strategic value. We aim to deliver solutions that not only meet legal objectives but also align with the client’s broader development goals. Crucially, we remain agile and adaptable, recognising that the nature of disputes, client expectations, and the technologies we use are constantly evolving. Given the length and complexity of many litigation matters, our ability to pivot—whether in terms of process, tools, or approach—is essential to staying ahead and continuing to deliver exceptional service throughout the lifecycle of a dispute.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping litigation and how can clients benefit from them?

We have a long history of investing in, and adopting, new technologies to ensure we are at the forefront of legal technology, focusing on optimising lawyer productivity. For example, we pioneered and use Luminance, which uses AI to speed up and enhance document review exercises (and have a strong relationship with the vendor, following our investment in the platform in 2016).

We expect that the combination of tools such as these will be the biggest catalyst in recent times in improving efficiencies for our clients. The use of new technologies and AI tools will change the roles of both in-house legal teams and their external counsel. For example, in-house teams may be able to use these tools for more discrete pieces of advice that they might previously have used external counsel for. It will therefore be critical to have effective dialogue about in house and external counsel capabilities, and how the two relate.