Commercial litigation in 2026 and beyond

September often heralds new beginnings, and litigation is no different. As commercial litigators sharpen their pencils for the new term ahead, this is an opportune moment to ask what lies ahead in the coming year. Daniel Spendlove and Simon Fawell, Partners at Signature Litigation in London, attempt some crystal ball gazing and consider what themes and topics will be the talk of 2026.

Demand for litigation services will remain high

One thing we have learned as litigators is to expect the unexpected. Workflows and the sources of disputes work are, to a large extent, unpredictable and outside of our control, driven as they are by external – often macroeconomic and geopolitical – factors. We have to move with the market and adapt our practices and skillsets according to the demand for our services. The same is true of any competitive sector.

A case in point is CEE disputes. For a number of years the High Court and those that litigate in it were kept incredibly busy by work from this region. However, a number of factors have caused a drop off in work levels. The reasons are diverse and complex but include (most obviously) the situation in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed as a result. Many litigators who previously focussed on high end, premium work in that area have therefore needed to diversify and, in some cases, reinvent themselves. Yet the London disputes market has remained busy and vibrant – a testament to the High Court's ability to attract heavy, complex litigation often involving overseas parties who have taken a conscious decision to resolve their disputes here. It is also reflective of the breadth of work handled in the High Court, even within the specialist divisions such as the Business & Property Courts.

On a more general level there is every reason to believe that activity levels will remain high as we move into 2026. From a jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement perspective the UK has safely navigated the choppy waters of Brexit. The exodus of work to other jurisdictions that was predicted by some has, it would seem, not materialised. A plethora of cases have reinforced the London High Court's reputation as a leading global venue to determine the most complex cases with subject matters as diverse as competition, insurance, pensions, banking and civil fraud. Despite some obvious challenges (addressed further below) the UK also remains a favoured (if not the preferred) European jurisdiction for collective redress and other funded litigation. The UK therefore looks set to remain, for the foreseeable future at least, a leading global disputes centre.

As to where the work will come from, predictions are difficult to make. In recent years many commentators predicted a surge in insolvency, trade, crypto and ESG disputes (to name just a few) – but these have, by and large, yet to materialise in the size and numbers predicted. The only certainty is that none of us really knows what is coming and where it will come from. But it will not stop us from making our own predictions…

Collective redress and litigation funding will continue to dominate the headlines

This prediction is easier because there is no shortage of funded collective claims travelling through the English courts into 2026. Again, the cases are very diverse in subject matter: from diesel emissions to collapsed damns to prospectus claims under FSMA. It is no coincidence that, of Solomonic's top 15 most tracked cases of 2024, seven are collective claims of one form or another. A number of those claims proceed to judgment or trial in 2026.

These claims will continue to make headlines, as will the role played in them by third-party litigation funders. The UK's prominence as a centre for collective claims and class actions is being challenged, though. The Netherlands in particular positioning itself as a friendly jurisdiction for those claims. Interest groups representing funders, claimant-focussed law firms and consumer organisations argue that the landscape for collective redress in the UK remains unfavourable and requires significant procedural reform to be workable. Some argue that the UK is being left behind by other jurisdictions (such as the Netherlands) in this arena and that the UK will lose market share if reforms are not made. However, corporate defendants remain concerned that further reform of collective redress in the UK will lead to an increase in claims constructed by claimant law firms and/or funders, designed to line stakeholders' pockets rather than return value to deserving claimants. Caught in the middle are the rule and policymakers and, of course, the judiciary. The debate has a long way to run yet and will likely remain a key story in 2026.

2026 will also see developments with respect to the reform and possible regulation of third-party funding. Earlier this year the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published its Final Report into the Review Litigation Funding. It made no fewer than 58 recommendations. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Chair of the CJC, remarked that these should "form the foundation for a more transparent, fair and effective litigation funding framework in England and Wales". Although few would disagree with that sentiment, the market will continue to debate exactly how it ought to be achieved.

In the meantime, whilst reports continue of some UK-centric litigation funders experiencing difficulty, the UK is still a generally favourable jurisdiction for third-party funding. The UK remains of particular interest to overseas funders, particularly from the US and Continental Europe. They will no doubt be wishing to capitalise (quite literally) on the continuing boom in collective redress in the UK, where demand seems to show no signs of abating. This in itself will keep many practitioners busy on both the claimant and defence side.

Technology: a predictable prediction

Technology now impacts upon virtually every aspect of our lives, and litigation is no different. Clients and indeed the courts are encouraging the use of technology and AI for (amongst other things) large scale disclosure exercises, and law firms are sensibly investing in technology to enhance their service offerings. All of this looks set to continue into 2026. Law firms who have put technology into the pending pile will need to revisit that assessment.

The debate will continue as to whether this is a threat to what we do or an opportunity to be embraced. Humans are naturally resistant to change, and lawyers are no different. However, whilst automation has its role to play in the exercise of preparing a case, the job of a litigator is inherently human: it requires judgment, emotional intelligence, diplomacy, lived experience, judgment and persuading other human beings. None of that can be adequately performed (if at all) by a machine. We are not, therefore, about to be replaced – we just need to undertake our jobs differently. The threats to what we do can easily, therefore, be overstated.

Technology and AI also present a tremendous opportunity to our industry. The global market for litigation has never been so competitive. London cannot, and should not, rest on its laurels. We need to adapt and innovate. We need to embrace change and ensure we remain the best place in the world to litigate disputes. We need to listen to feedback as to why users may choose other jurisdictions, and respond appropriately. One such opportunity is the cost (or perceived cost) of litigating here, in particular the cost associated with disclosure. Technology has an obvious part to play in reducing the disclosure burden and cost. We should therefore welcome the courts' open and modern approach to technology and AI, and continue to support its proactively as we head into 2026.

For every positive and optimistic voice on these topics there will be negative ones. What is clear, however, is that the debate will continue. In the meantime, are lawyers about to be replaced by robots? Certainly not. Can technology add value to what we do, in the interests of our clients? Absolutely. And is technology an opportunity for the London disputes market, in an increasingly competitive world? Most definitely.

Whisper it quietly: private credit

Private credit is (and has been for a while) the talk of the town amongst transactional lawyers in many major financial centres, including London. It is reshaping the financial markets, in particular the banking, insurance, private equity, and asset and wealth management industries. This looks set to continue into 2026, as demand for private credit looks set to increase and more and more capital providers look to get in on the action.

It is too early to talk of an impending 'boom' in private credit disputes but there are indicators to suggest that time could be soon. It is a market that has seen extraordinary growth which looks set to continue: according to the Alternative Credit Council the market for private credit exceeds US$3 trillion. However, in a more volatile economic climate than we have seen for a while (arguably for generations), the relative structural illiquidity of the market combined with pertinent questions as to transparency, structuring, financing and management give a hint as to disputes that may be round the corner:

• How should private credit portfolios be valued?

• To whom do valuers owe their duties?

• What duties and responsibilities are owed between different capital layers?

• What external disclosures and risk warnings do private credit providers need to provide and can liability for representations and statements made be limited effectively?

• Are capital providers financing in accordance with their own financing criteria?

• Are fund managers navigating risks appropriately?

• Is it appropriate to make private credit risks and opportunities available to retail investors?

2026 may therefore see an increase in private credit disputes. Whilst there is every incentive for the parties involved in private credit structures to resolve those disputes early, and confidentially, it may prove impossible to achieve this – particularly if relationships breakdown and/or liquidity crises occur. For now, however, litigators would be well advised to familiarise themselves with this important market and prepare themselves for, at the very least, some early advisory, pre-litigation mandates.

An increasingly competitive market for law firms

As the litigation market in London has grown, so too has the range and diversity of law firms and practices that occupy it. Long gone are the days when the names on cases were exclusively (or almost exclusively) large, traditional UK law firms. It is now almost expected that one of the names on a headline-grabbing case will be a specialist disputes practice or a US-headquartered law firm. The market continues to fragment with ever more specialist firms on the scene. Clients are – to put it bluntly – spoilt for choice.

As we head into 2026 law firms will need to flex and adapt to remain competitive in what is increasingly a cut-throat market. Clients shop around more than they ever have done, and longstanding institutional relationships with existing firms are no longer guarantees of inbound litigation work. The pressure of pricing is increasing: no client enjoys spending money on litigation – it is seen as a necessary evil – and there is a growing trend of large, institutional clients looking to drive efficiency and cut legal costs. They are increasingly turning to disputes-only firms for big-ticket defence work, particularly as many of those specialists are no longer excluded from cases by size and reputation alone. Firms are increasingly being asked to reduce rates and offer innovative pricing models, and the rise of technology has put pressure on traditional firms, in particular, to re-think leverage and pricing for tasks which were traditionally highly profitable. The firms that will thrive will be those that are agile and able to listen, respond and adapt to client needs whilst also dealing with the stresses and demands of fast moving litigation.

Firms are already responding to these challenges in a number of ways. Some are outsourcing part of their service offering to lower cost jurisdictions, others are focussing on only the most profitable, highest margin types of work and clients, whilst others are exploring alternative business models or entering into long-term exclusive arrangements with litigation funders. Standing still is, it would seem, no longer an option.