CDR in 10 issues

Welcome to the second edition of CDR in 10 issues — our bite-sized guide to the top 10 developments currently shaping commercial dispute resolution. Created with in-house lawyers in mind, we distil the most important updates, case law, and strategic considerations into 10 key issues making it quick to read and easy to apply. Whether you're managing live disputes, assessing litigation risk or refining your approach for the year ahead, CDR in 10 issues keeps you informed and prepares you for what comes next.

Top 10 issues

Expect increased scrutiny of how AI is used – especially in witness and expert evidence

As generative AI becomes a routine part of legal work, the courts are beginning to grapple with how its use should be governed in litigation. On 17 February 2026, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published an interim report and consultation on using AI to prepare court documents and whether changes to the Civil Procedure Rules are needed. The consultation closed on 14 April 2026 with a final report expected shortly. The CJC is considering whether rules are needed to regulate AI use by lawyers and whether specific declarations are required. One significant proposal is that trial witness statements covered by PD57AC or CPR 32 should include a declaration confirming that AI was not used to generate their content. It also suggests that the form of statement of truth used by experts to verify their report (under PD 35.3.3) should be amended to include a declaration explaining how AI has been used and which tools were involved. By contrast, the CJC is proposing a lighter touch elsewhere. Given that AI is already widely used in disclosure exercises, it does not recommend new requirements for disclosure lists or statements. Nor does it see a strong case for regulating AI use in drafting statements of case or skeleton arguments, provided that a named legal representative takes professional responsibility for the document. Separately, Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) minutes of a meeting dated 6 March 2026 confirm that a standing committee on AI will also be established to review the CPR in light of the evolving use of AI in litigation and to explore how AI tools might assist the CRPC’s work. Further guidance (and possibly governance) on the use of AI seems inevitable.

Treat open AI tools as off-limits for confidential or legally privileged material

The Upper Tribunal’s decision in UK and R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) (Munir) is a timely warning for anyone using AI. The Tribunal concluded that putting confidential client information into an open, public tool such as ChatGPT is effectively the same as placing it in the public domain and on the internet - with the result that confidentiality is breached and legal privilege is waived. The Tribunal drew a clear line between open AI tools and closed systems such as Microsoft Copilot, which do not make data public and therefore do not carry the same privilege risk. While the decision is not binding on the High Court, it gives a strong indication of how the judiciary is likely to approach privilege and AI and underlines a significant issue for legal teams determining which AI tools to use and when.

AI generated content must be independently verified, and organisations should have clear guardrails on when and how AI tools are used

Following the high profile and widely reported decisions in R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC and Hamad Al Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the courts have continued to see a steady flow of cases involving fictitious citations and other inaccurate material being put before them. This issue also arose in the Munir case, where one of the legal representatives relied on a non existent authority generated using an AI tool. This growing body of case law is a clear reminder of the continued risks associated with unverified AI outputs. For in-house teams, it underlines the importance of ensuring that any AI assisted legal work is carefully checked for accuracy, and provides another reason why organisations need clear, well understood policies governing how AI tools can be used.

Internal documents prepared by the client group can attract legal advice privilege if they are prepared for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice but were not shared with a lawyer

In Aabar Holdings S.á.r.l. & Ors v Glencore Plc [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm), the High Court has taken a more pragmatic approach to legal advice privilege that is likely to be welcomed by in-house teams - holding that legal advice privilege applies to any intra-client document which is sent between or created by members of the “client group” for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice. The judge rejected the Claimants’ argument that he was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Three Rivers (No. 5) [2003] Q.B. 1556 to find that legal advice privilege applies only to communications between lawyer and client. The court reasoned that there is no principled distinction between documents intended to be communicated to a lawyer and documents containing information intended to be communicated to a lawyer and that intra-client documents created as part of the process of seeking legal advice should attract privilege in the same way as a lawyer's working papers. This is a significant judgment that has widened legal advice privilege to all internal documents created by the client where the dominant purpose is to seek legal advice, even if they will not actually be sent to a lawyer.

Ensure supplier underperformance is managed effectively through regular monitoring, consistent KPIs, accurate performance records and early input

The Procurement Act 2023 has introduced a more robust and transparent regime for managing supplier underperformance on public contracts, giving contracting authorities stronger tools to incentivise compliance and address poor performance. From 1 January 2026, authorities must assess and publish supplier performance against KPIs for higher value contracts and may be required to issue Contract Performance Notices where suppliers fail to improve after being given the opportunity to do so. While these measures increase leverage and accountability, they also carry legal and reputational risk, particularly where performance assessments are challenged. In this article, Emily Beckwith, a Senior Associate, in our Commercial Dispute Resolution team in Bristol, highlights the key considerations. For more information, see our Navigating Supplier Performance hub.

No statutory limitation period for unfair prejudice petitions but delay in issuing petition still a key factor

In THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2026] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court overturned recent uncertainty and restored the long accepted position that a section 994 “unfair prejudice” petition is not subject to the Limitation Act 1980. A petition is neither an “action upon a specialty” nor, even where financial relief is sought, a claim to recover a statutory sum. The Supreme Court also rejected the idea that different limitation periods should apply depending on whether the remedy sought is monetary or non monetary, describing that approach as arbitrary and unworkable. While there is no hard statutory deadline, the Supreme Court made it clear that judges retain wide discretion when deciding what remedy (if any) should be granted. Unexplained or unjustified delay can be fatal in some circumstances and the courts will look closely at the conduct of the petitioner and whether any delay has caused prejudice to the respondent. Early legal advice remains critical, both when considering bringing a petition and when assessing the impact of any delay.

Post issue, ensure an authorised person is responsible for the litigation and is supervising the work of unauthorised person(s)

On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal (The Master of the Rolls, the Chancellor of the High Court and Lady Justice Andrews) handed down judgment in Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. They agreed with CILEX and found that the High Court was wrong to distinguish last year between (a) supporting or assisting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation, and (b) conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor. Both activities are lawful. Consequently, it is lawful for an unauthorised person to act for and on behalf of an authorised person to “conduct litigation” under their supervision, provided the authorised person puts in place appropriate arrangements for the supervision of and delegation of tasks to the unauthorised person. What is appropriate will depend on the circumstances of each case including the complexity and nature of the work and the experience and competence of the unauthorised person.

Litigating parties have long had to manage risks surrounding witness coaching, but technology is now reshaping the landscape with new risks in play

In UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch), the High Court made significant findings regarding the evidence of several witnesses in a trial to determine the ownership of a company, including rejecting the second claimant's evidence entirely, largely because he was found to be receiving coaching during cross-examination through his smart glasses. Call logs revealed that the second claimant made numerous calls to a contact saved as "abra kadabra" immediately before entering the witness box and during the giving of evidence. His explanation that the contact was a taxi driver lacked credibility and the court accepted that he was being coached during cross-examination. The judge rejected his evidence in its entirety. This case highlights how smart technology can undermine the integrity of oral evidence and the consequences of its misuse.

Any failure to properly and fully disclose commission arrangements may open door to claims for repayment

The legality of commission payments to third party brokers which are not fully disclosed is an issue which been brought to the fore recently in two landmark Supreme Court decisions - Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited (2025) UKSC 33 (motor finance commissions) and Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 292 (energy broker commissions). Where an agent receives commission and a fiduciary duty is established to the customer, only disclosure of all material facts and only fully informed consent will suffice to prevent a breach of that fiduciary duty. Partial disclosure or a "half secret" commission (such as knowing a commission exists but not its amount) cannot amount to informed consent. In practice, this means any failures to properly disclose commission arrangements may now expose brokers and suppliers to claims for repayment of commission payments, making it critical for in-house legal teams to review existing commission practices and update disclosure wording where needed.

Active contract management and early intervention is critical

Ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, including the conflict in Iran, is already placing significant strain on global supply chains. Commentators are warning that a prolonged conflict could push the global economy into recession, with the International Monetary Fund predicting that UK growth will be hit harder than any other leading economy. If economic pressures continue to intensify, the impact on businesses will be significant. We may see an increase in debt claims, contract disputes including increased scrutiny on force majeure clauses, breaches of warranty and termination clauses as well as supply chain disputes due to non-delivery, delays and failures to meet specific service levels or KPIs. Businesses should be vigilant and act early. Keep contracts and supply arrangements under close review, monitor performance against contractual obligations and KPIs, and engage with trading partners at the first sign of difficulty. Getting on top of key contractual protections, including force majeure, variation and termination provisions, will be critical. Seek legal advice at an early stage to manage risk, preserve relationships and avoid escalation where possible.

Summary

We hope this update helps you navigate the commercial disputes landscape with confidence and clarity. If you’d like to delve deeper into any of the topics covered, or suggest areas for future Insights, we’d be delighted to hear from you. Also, don’t forget our Disputes Outlook 2026 and in particular our commercial disputes report which identifies the key issues and emerging trends that will impact commercial disputes during this year.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at April 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.