CDR in 10 issues

The commercial disputes landscape is changing at pace, and emerging trends are raising new issues that require close attention and proactive planning. Originally planned for the autumn, we’ve brought forward this third edition of CDR in 10 Issues to make you aware of some recent developments.  Tailored for in-house counsel, this concise, practical guide considers the 10 key issues shaping the current disputes landscape, from important case law to ongoing consultations and upcoming changes to legislation - helping you stay informed, assess impact on your organisations, and plan for what comes next.  

Top 10 issues

Treat AI outputs like any other unverified source - check them, challenge them and use your professional judgment  

In Cork v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch), the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors (a partner and a senior associate) after two letters which contained misleading AI-generated material were put before the Court.  The judge sought an explanation as to why inaccurate and misleading information had been put before him and it was later established that a junior associate had used an AI tool being piloted by the firm. The judge accepted that the solicitors had not intended to mislead the Court and were unaware that the associate had used AI. There had however been a failure to supervise the junior associate adequately and the solicitors should have checked the accuracy of the letters being put before the Court. The judge concluded that public admonishment in his judgment, together with the firm's own SRA referral, was an appropriate punishment - emphasising that legal professionals cannot outsource the process of legal research or reasoning to AI. That stance has been recently echoed by the SRA in its updated guidance of 12 June 2026 making clear that AI outputs produced with the assistance of AI should be subject to “appropriate human review, scrutiny and professional judgment and that effective supervision should be put in place”.

Courts may correct clear drafting errors where the mistake is clear & it is obvious what the parties intended  

In Shenzhen H&T Intelligent Control Co Ltd v Smarter Applications Ltd [2026] EWHC 805 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered a limitation of liability clause as part of a summary judgment application by the Defendant and held that a clear drafting error could be corrected as part of contractual construction. The clause referred to the “customer” when addressing the relevant liability, but the Court concluded this was a mistake and should be read as “manufacturer”. In reaching this view, the Court emphasised that limiting one party’s liability by reference to payments made by the counterparty is a recognised commercial drafting technique which aligns risk with reward. The Court confirmed that “correction by construction” is permissible where (i) there is a clear mistake and (ii) it is obvious what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have intended. This exercise did not amount to “rewriting a commercially unattractive bargain but identifying what the parties agreed”.

Organisations should expect reduced flexibility in negotiating payment terms with smaller businesses and increased exposure to financial penalties if poor payment practices persist

The Commercial Payments Bill, introduced to Parliament on 19 May, represents the most significant reform of the UK’s late payment regime since the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Its central objective is to address the issue of late invoice payments faced by small businesses and to strengthen their “cash flow position”. The Bill proposes a number of measures, including: (i) a statutory maximum payment term of 60 days (subject to limited exceptions); (ii) mandatory interest on late payments at a rate of 8% above the Bank of England base rate; and (iii) new enforcement powers enabling action against larger businesses that persistently engage in poor payment practices, including fines of up to 1% of UK annual turnover. The proposed reforms will bring about significant changes, making it essential for organisations to review standard payment practices, tighten dispute processes, and ensure timely invoice management to mitigate the risk of mandatory interest, enforcement action and the potential for reputational damage.

This judgment marks a clear shift in approach. The focus is now on public interest, making it potentially harder for authorities to lift automatic suspensions

In this article, TLT’s Matthew McLellan considers the impact of Parkingeye Ltd v Velindre University NHS Trust & Anor [2026] EWHC 1019 (TCC). In that case, the High Court refused to lift an automatic suspension on a contract for parking management services, marking a significant first ruling under section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023. The Court held that section 102 introduces a procurement-specific test, requiring the Court to balance the public interest against the interests of suppliers, departing from the previous American Cyanamid test. The Court held that upholding the principle that public contracts should be awarded lawfully and in the public interest will generally favour maintaining the suspension until the dispute is resolved. While the adequacy of damages remains a relevant factor, it no longer carries the weight it did previously.

Strong contractual protections, effective data controls and swift action on employee departures can significantly reduce the risk of misuse and strengthen enforcement options if breach occurs

In Hattons of London Ltd v The Knightsbridge Collection Ltd & ors [2026] EWHC 1510 (KB), the High Court found in favour of the Claimant in its claims for breach of confidence, breach of contract, unlawful means conspiracy and infringement of database rights after a group of former employees used its confidential customer information to establish a rival business. Evidence showed that 172 of the new company's 176 sales were made to the Claimant's customers, strongly indicating that the “new” business had relied on misappropriated information. The Court also held that the Defendants remained subject to duties of confidence in respect of the Claimant's customer data even after their employment had ended. To prevent the Defendants from retaining the benefit of their misconduct, the court granted a final injunction extending springboard relief for a further 18 months, giving the Claimant time to neutralise the competitive advantage obtained through the misuse of its confidential information. As highlighted in our Disputes Outlook 2026 and CDR in 10 guidance, we continue to see a steady flow of disputes involving misuse of confidential information and breaches of post-termination restrictions. If misuse is suspected, act quickly to identify what information has been taken, gather evidence and assess any contractual restrictions.

The Law Commission is seeking stakeholder views on the project, which presents a valuable opportunity to influence both the scope and design of any future regime

The Law Commission has launched a new project to explore the risks and benefits of introducing a consumer class actions regime and is seeking stakeholder views by 30 October 2026. The objectives are to improve consumer access to redress “both by securing redress in court and by ensuring that damages are distributed to the affected class” and promote the efficient conduct of litigation at proportionate cost. If implemented, this would mark the introduction of the first standalone opt-out regime for consumer law collective actions in England and Wales, signalling a notable shift in the current disputes landscape. While procedural avenues already exist for bringing group claims before the courts, each has its own criteria, and can be open to challenge. A dedicated consumer class action regime that addresses these issues may therefore be welcomed if it results in procedural changes and cost efficiencies.

Creditors will need to factor in longer timescales during the early stages of enforcement as debtors are given more time to seek advice and repay the debt

The Taking Control of Goods (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 (the Regulations) came into force on 1 May 2026 and will apply to warrants and writs of control filed from 1 May 2026. The Regulations introduce key changes to enforcement procedures including longer notice periods. An enforcement agent must now give 14 days’ clear notice (rather than 7 days) before taking control of goods and this can be extended up to 28 days for personal debts where a debt advice provider is involved. There is also a restriction on escalation. Where no initial contact is made at the first attendance by a bailiff, debtors must now be given a further opportunity to pay in full or enter into a repayment arrangement before the enforcement is moved onto the second stage.

Decision signals that the courts are reluctant to give litigation funders the right to interfere with settlement distributions that prioritise compensation for the class when the outcome is modest  

In R (on the application of Innsworth Capital Ltd) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2026] EWHC 1393 (Admin), the Administrative Court has dismissed the judicial review claim brought by litigation funder, Innsworth, which sought to challenge the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT) order for distribution of settlement proceeds in the collective proceedings brought against Mastercard.  The Court confirmed that the CAT has wide and flexible powers when determining what distribution of settlement proceeds is “just and reasonable”, reflecting its role as a specialist expert tribunal. The CAT’s approach to the funder’s return was upheld as lawful, proportionate, and well within those powers.  The Court endorsed the CAT’s emphasis that the collective proceedings regime is designed primarily to benefit class members, not funders or lawyers, particularly where the litigation outcome is relatively modest compared to the original claim. Overall, the decision reinforces the CAT’s broad discretion over settlement distribution and funder returns.

Keep an eye on developments, internal processes and external advice to ensure claims are issued in the appropriate forum as High Court structure and jurisdictional boundaries change  

Plans have been announced to establish a new Business and Property Division within the High Court, replacing the Chancery Division and bringing all Business and Property Courts under a single, unified structure. The reforms aim to simplify governance, improve clarity for court users and embrace more flexible judicial deployment. In parallel, the Civil Justice Council has launched a review of County Court track limits and the division of work between the County Court and High Court, focusing on efficiency, costs and access to justice. Together, these developments signal a shift in where claims are issued and how they are allocated with potential impacts also on procedure, litigation strategy and costs.

FMOs are likely to be granted only in exceptional circumstances with public access to court documents prevailing in most cases  

In Various Claimants v Entain PLC [2026] EWHC 1511 (Comm), the Commercial Court provided guidance on when it may grant a FMO under Practice Direction 51ZH - Access to Public Domain Documents. The pilot, which runs from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2027 in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court and Financial List, is intended to increase transparency by giving non-parties wider access to court documents through CE-File without needing the court's permission, unless an FMO is in place. The CPS sought an FMO because parallel criminal proceedings were underway against individuals named in the civil case. While the court confirmed that open justice and public access to court documents remain the starting point, it recognised that restrictions may be justified where disclosure could prejudice related criminal proceedings or otherwise undermine the administration of justice. A FMO was granted on that basis but the judgment sets a high bar for the granting of FMOs in the future.  There is likely to be a strong presumption in favour of open justice. Assume that documents filed with the court (such as skeleton arguments, witness statements, affidavits and expert reports) will be accessible to non-parties and that, in turn, may be key factor in deciding how litigation is conducted and in what forum.

Thank you for reading this edition of CDR in 10 issues.

We hope this insight enables you to navigate the commercial disputes landscape with greater confidence and clarity. If you would like to explore any of the topics further, or have suggestions for future Insights, we would be pleased to hear from you. For previous editions of CDR in issues, please visit our CDR in 10 Hub.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at July 2026. For more information see our terms & conditions.