England & Wales Litigation Brief — 2026 Mid-Year Update

Table of Contents

• Contractual Interpretation

• Financial Services

• Privilege

• Class Actions & Group Litigation

• International Arbitration

• Technology & AI

• Defamation & SLAPPs

• Director's Duties

• Jurisdiction & Service

• Updates on Cases from Our Last Alert

Six months on from our alert England & Wales Litigation Brief — 2025 in Review, the courts have handed down a series of decisions with real practical consequences for businesses and their advisers: how insurance contracts and savings clauses are construed, how far privilege extends within corporate groups, when large opt-out class actions will be certified, the enforceability of arbitral awards against states, and the patentability of AI. We summarise the key judgments from February to June 2026 below, and flag developments in matters from our last review.

Contractual Interpretation

1. Gatwick Investment Ltd & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE; Bath Racecourse Company Ltd & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE & Ors [2026] UKSC 14

   • The Supreme Court held that government furlough (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme or CJRS) payments must be deducted from Covid-19 business interruption claims under policy "savings" clauses, resolving around £1 billion of market-wide deductions.
   • The Court rejected the policyholders' "collateral benefits" argument, holding that CJRS payments were made pursuant to a legal obligation (not gratuitously) and so were proximately caused by the insured peril.
   • It also confirmed that the policyholders' argument relied on the very "but for" causation test rejected in FCA v Arch, and clarified that the FCA v Arch approach to construction focuses on a reasonable person in the position of the parties, not solely a hypothetical "ordinary policyholder."

   READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.




2. Textor v Iconic Sports Eagle Investment LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 355

   • The Court of Appeal held that the obligations to deliver documents of title and to pay for shares under a put option agreement (relating to John Textor's Eagle Football group) were concurrent, not sequential.
   • There is a strong presumption that delivery and payment in a sale are concurrent conditions requiring simultaneous performance, and the words "subject to" were insufficient to rebut that presumption (following Doherty v Fannigan Holdings).
   • This case serves as a useful reminder on drafting completion mechanics and conditionality.

   READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Financial Services

Kession Capital v KVB Consultants [2026] UKSC 11

• The Supreme Court held that an authorised person can validly limit its liability under section 39 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) for the acts of its appointed representative by restricting the scope of that representative's appointment.
• The decision confirms that liability under the appointed representative regime is not automatic or unlimited, underscoring the importance of precisely defining the scope of an appointment in the underlying agreement to manage regulatory and civil liability exposure.

READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Privilege

Aabar Holdings S.à.r.l. & Ors v Glencore plc & Ors [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm)

• The Commercial Court held that legal advice privilege can apply to intra-client communications and documents within the corporate client group, provided they are confidential and created or sent for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice.
• The court held that Three Rivers (No. 5) was not in fact concerned with intra-client documents at all — instead, it concerned documents from employees treated as third parties, so it does not restrict privilege in this context. This case is significant for internal investigations and the management of privilege within corporate groups.

READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Class Actions & Group Litigation

Consumers' Association v Qualcomm Incorporated [2026] CAT 50

• The Competition Appeal Tribunal approved its first-ever "drop hands" collective settlement, bringing to an end the £480 million opt-out claim (on behalf of an estimated 29 million UK smartphone owners) brought by the consumer group Which? with no payment by Qualcomm.
• Following a five-week trial, the Tribunal independently assessed that the claim had "no realistic prospect of success" (around 10–15%). The decision confirms that unmeritorious collective claims can be brought to an efficient end, and gives guidance on assessing "just and reasonable" settlements where no damages are paid, including weighing the interests of defendants, funders, and "After the Event" (ATE) insurers alongside the class.

READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

International Arbitration

1. The Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. & Anor [2026] UKSC 9

   • The Supreme Court confirmed that signing the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention waives state immunity against the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards in the UK, holding that Article 54 constitutes a clear and unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts under section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978.
   • The Court clarified that a treaty waiver need not use words such as "waiver" or "submission," but confirmed that this waiver does not extend to immunity from execution against state assets (preserved by Article 55), which must still be expressly waived.

   READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.




2. Hulley Enterprises Ltd v Russian Federation [2026] EWHC 456 (Comm)

   • The Commercial Court ordered enforcement of the Yukos Energy Charter Treaty awards (over US$50 billion) as New York Convention awards, refusing enforcement only as to the tribunal's award of costs (and interest on costs).
   • Russia's public policy objections — based on both pre-arbitration conduct and alleged fraud in the arbitration — were otherwise rejected, the court emphasising the high, narrowly construed bar under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and that it is bound by the tribunal's findings. The court observed that enforcement of New York Convention awards is "not a moral beauty contest" and can be relied on "by sinners, no less than by saints."

   READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.




3. Maxamcorp International SL v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm)

   • The Commercial Court (Bryan J) continued anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions restraining Eurotel from pursuing Russian proceedings brought in breach of arbitration agreements across seven supply agreements. Relief was granted in support not only of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) (London-seated) agreement but also the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) (Hong Kong) and ICC International Court of Arbitration (as-yet undesignated seat) agreements, and extended to claims advanced on "derived" (assignee) contractual rights.
   • Although Eurotel had obtained a Russian merits judgment despite the interim injunction, the court made a mandatory order requiring Eurotel to take all steps to set that judgment aside, and rejected arguments based on a 16-month delay and on alleged submission to the Russian court.

   READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Technology & AI

Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3

• The Supreme Court abandoned the long-standing Aerotel test for assessing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, aligning UK law with the European Patent Office's "any hardware" approach in G1/19.
• While holding that the artificial neural network in issue was a "program for a computer," the Court found the claims were not excluded "as such" because the invention could only run on hardware (and the claims also referenced a database, communications network, and user device), and remitted the question of patentability to the UK Intellectual Property Office.
• The judgment represents a landmark reset for AI and software patentability that lowers the threshold for clearing the computer-program exclusion.

READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Defamation & SLAPPs

Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Neidle [2026] EWHC 551 (KB)

• The High Court (Collins Rice J) struck out the malicious falsehood claim and parts of the libel claim brought by tax barrister Setu Kamal against Tax Policy Associates Ltd, and granted the defendants summary judgment on the whole claim (honest opinion defence).
• In the first application of the new statutory regime, the court also declared the claim a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) within the meaning of section 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
• The judgment provides early guidance on the SLAPP test (including its subjective intention requirement) and is significant for reputation management, investigative reporting, and the costs protection now available to SLAPP defendants.

READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Director's Duties

Saxon Woods Investments Limited & Ors v Francesco Costa [2026] UKSC 21

• The Supreme Court considered the standard of behaviour required of a company director under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 in the context of unfair prejudice proceedings under section 994. The Court held that a director's subjective belief that he is acting in the company's best interests is not, without more, a complete defence to a section 172 claim — particularly where the director has acted covertly, withheld information from, or misled the board. However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that dishonesty had not been established on the facts, and confirmed that dishonesty is not a necessary ingredient of unfair prejudice.
• The decision is significant for directors and investors in private companies: it clarifies the limits of the subjective belief defence under section 172 and underscores that controllers who manage exit processes must act transparently and must not frustrate agreed sale mechanisms, even where they genuinely believe a different course would generate greater value.

READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Jurisdiction & Service

Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks [2026] EWCA Civ 139

• The Court of Appeal addressed jurisdiction and personal service on sanctioned individuals, establishing a new category of defendant whose deemed presence within the jurisdiction may not be sufficient to satisfy the service requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
• The decision is significant for parties seeking to effect service on individuals subject to UK sanctions, and warrants careful consideration of service strategy in such cases.

READ THE FULL JUDGMENT.

Updates on Cases from Our Last Alert

1. Motor Finance Commissions — Following: Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd; Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd; Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd [2025] UKSC 33

   Since our last alert, the Financial Conduct Authority has introduced an industry-wide redress scheme to compensate motor finance customers treated unfairly between 2007 and 2024. The final scheme is expected to put £7.5 billion back in consumers' pockets, with the FCA estimating a total bill to firms of £9.1 billion; parts of the scheme have since been suspended pending legal challenges, with hearings expected in late 2026/early 2027.

2. Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)

   • Following the High Court's November 2025 judgment, which substantially dismissed Getty's claims and found only "historic and extremely limited" trademark infringement, Getty has obtained permission to appeal the dismissal of the secondary copyright infringement claim.
   • The appeal will revisit what can constitute an "infringing copy" in the context of AI models trained overseas, and remains one to watch for rights-holders and AI developers.

For More Information

Members of the London litigation team are following developments in England & Wales litigation and arbitration. For further information on any of these cases or the topics they consider, you may contact the authors.