CDR in 10 issues

Welcome to the first edition of CDR in 10 issues — your concise guide to the developments shaping commercial dispute resolution today. Designed for in-house lawyers, this Insight distils the most important updates, case law, and strategic considerations into 10 key issues making it quick to read and easy to digest. Whether you're navigating litigation risk, managing current disputes, or refining your approach, CDR in 10 issues keeps you informed and prepares you for what comes next. 

The 10 issues 

Don’t ignore low value data disputes that you think may be trivial.

In Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117, the Court of Appeal confirmed that damages for distress and fear of data misuse are recoverable in breach of data claims. This decision overturns a previous High Court ruling that had struck out the claims of 432 police officers who alleged breaches of data protection law and misuse of private information after their annual benefit statements were sent to wrong addresses.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no minimum threshold of seriousness. It rejected the idea that lower value cases are trivial or abusive and confirmed that all claims deserve to be heard and dealt with proportionately. In practice, this means that even minor breaches could now lead to possible litigation and so it is imperative to review data handling practices and procedures and consider the impact of any data breaches at an early stage.

Binding contracts can be formed on social media platforms/when you don’t expect.

In two recent decisions (Jaevee Homes v Fincham [2025] EWHC 942 and DAZN Limited v Coupang Corp [2025] EWCA Civ 1083), the High Court and Court of Appeal respectively have found that a binding contract was concluded between the parties despite the informal nature of the conversations between them on social media platforms such as WhatsApp. These rulings serve as a clear reminder that conducting negotiations through messaging apps can have significant legal implications and parties can conclude a legally binding contract if they reflect that intention and the core terms are agreed.

Read more in the September 2025 edition of Contracts Matter.

Seek tailored legal advice before entering into an NDA.

We are seeing an increase in the use of NDAs to protect confidential information, maintain reputations, and preserve competitive advantages. In this article, Tori Lewis, a Senior Associate in our Commercial Dispute resolution team in London provides some top tips for using NDAs effectively and outlines what steps you should take if a breach occurs - The rise of the NDA and what to do if there is a breach - TLT LLP 

The new Act is intended to maintain the appeal of arbitration.

The Arbitration Act 2025 came into force on 1 August. It provides welcome amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996, helping to fine-tune the arbitration framework in England and Wales and cements London’s position as a leading international centre for arbitration and dispute resolution. In this article, Ken Ross, a Senior Associate in our Commercial Dispute Resolution team in London, provides a short summary of the key changes and outlines what these changes may mean in practice - Arbitration Act 2025 - what you need to know - TLT LLP 

Pilot may impact commercial organisations with confidential information to protect.

A pilot, which was expected to operate in the Commercial Court in London from October 2025 but may now be delayed, will provide greater public access to court documents via CE-file site. The general rule currently is that statements of case and public orders or judgments can be obtained by non parties without permission, but access to other documents in the proceedings is restricted. It is expected that the proposed pilot will give non parties the ability to obtain a wider range of documents without the court’s permission, including witness statements, expert reports, and even skeleton arguments. It would be for the party to the proceedings to apply to restrict access to those documents, but the current understanding is that the pilot will ensure that ‘genuinely confidential’ material can be redacted through a ‘judge’s file modification order.’ While steps can be taken to preserve confidentiality, the fact that sensitive documents may become more readily available to non parties could be a consideration for in house lawyers when deciding how litigation is conducted and in what forum.

Potential good news for organisations that face group claims.

In our Disputes Outlook 2025 campaign, we predicted a continued increase in class actions – especially in the Competition Appeal Tribunal where claimant law firms and funders have viewed group claims as a new source of revenue. However, the tide may be slowly changing (but please see issue 7 below). The Department for Business and Trade has announced a review of the opt-out collective action regime for competition claims. The review will consider potential improvements to the current regime including whether there should be alternative routes in which consumers could seek redress “that may reduce the burden on both consumers and businesses.”

The reversal of the PACCR decision may lead to an increase in group claims backed by litigation funding.

The CJC report makes 58 recommendations in total but there are three main proposals: 1. The effect of PACCAR (the Supreme Court judgment which effectively prohibited funders recovering on a percentage of damages basis) should be reversed “as soon as possible” by legislation and that should apply retrospectively and prospectively; 2. Litigation funding should be subject to “light-touch” regulation; and 3. There should be a new single regulatory regime for CFAs and DBAs. The decision to reverse PACCAR will be good news for funders and claimants, and legislation should increase certainty but the reversal of PACCAR may well mean the number of collective claims increase once again. 

Companies can resist the disclosure of privileged information to shareholders.

In Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and others [2025] UKPC 34, the Privy Council held that the “shareholder rule” should no longer be recognised as forming part of English law. The shareholder rule had applied for 135 years and refers to the principle that a company cannot claim privilege against one of its own shareholders except in relation to documents that were created for the dominant purpose of hostile litigation between the company and that shareholder. However, following this most recent decision, a shareholder will no longer be able to rely on the rule and will no longer be able to secure disclosure from the company of privileged legal advice to which they would not otherwise be entitled.

Provide training & guidance on risks of using of AI and remind your lawyers & panel firms that they remain responsible for checking the output generated by any AI tool.

Two recent cases R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) (6 June 2025) and Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC (unreported), 12 May 2025 (High Court) have highlighted issues arising out of the use by lawyers of GenAI tools. Both a barrister and a solicitor were referred to their professional regulators for citing cases that did not exist. The court issued a strong warning to legal practitioners about the risks of using GenAI tools and emphasised that they have a professional duty to check the accuracy of any output.

Allows parties to agree non-exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clauses (which were previously excluded from the scope of the Hague Choice of Court Convention).

The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 came into force in the UK on 1 July 2025 and applies to the enforcement of judgments in proceedings commenced on or after that date. It provides for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial foreign judgments among contracting states. This is likely to be a welcome development post-Brexit and provide greater certainty as to recognising and enforcing judgments between the UK and EU member states.

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

We hope this Insight helps you navigate the commercial disputes landscape with clarity and confidence. If you’d like to explore any of the topics further or suggest areas for future coverage, we’d love to hear from you.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at September 2025. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms and conditions.