Top 15 most tracked High Court cases of 2025
High-value cases with far reaching impact dominate the list.
Ahead of the upcoming Solomonic Year in Review, we have published the top 15 most tracked High Court cases of 2025 on the Solomonic platform. Powered by insight from over 10,000 litigation professionals, the list is a must-read, offering valuable intelligence on the key disputes shaping our legal landscape.
The claims touch on a range of far reaching issues, including AI-related copyright infringement, corporate misconduct FSMA actions, and litigation arising from major events such as the Grenfell tragedy, the Covid-19 pandemic, the Fundão dam collapse and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The list also features one of the largest product liability cases ever seen in the English courts.
How Solomonic tracks the most followed cases
Solomonic’s market-leading case tracking insights are built on activity from thousands of litigation professionals who monitor disputes through the Solomonic platform. The most tracked cases highlight the matters that have generated the greatest interest over the year, revealing the topics, businesses and judgments shaping discussion across the legal market. These rankings provide a data-driven overview of the High Court cases and the law firms operating at the forefront of the sector.
The top 15 most tracked High Court cases of 2025
Case #1 Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability Al Ltd
The UK's first High Court case to address intellectual property issues arising from generative AI, the court examined key questions on secondary copyright infringement. In her judgment of 4 November 2025 Dame Justice Joanna Smith dismissed the majority of Getty Images’ claim and ruled largely in favour of Stability AI. Getty succeeded only on a narrow trademark issue relating to isolated historic reproductions of watermarks in early model outputs, with broader copyright claims rejected.
Status update: Getty Images has been granted permission to appeal certain aspects of the judgment, particularly in relation to the secondary copyright findings. Further proceedings are expected as that appeal progresses.
Fieldfisher represent the claimants and Bird & Bird for the defendant.
Case #2 Davies and others v Johnson & Johnson and others; Fuschillo v Johnson & Johnson and others
KB-2026-000030 (CC-2025-MAN-000067), KB-2026-000032 (CC-2025-MAN-000068)
A major group action has been brought against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, alleging the company knowingly sold talcum powder contaminated with asbestos, leading to ovarian cancer, mesothelioma and other serious illnesses. The claimants argue that J&J and its subsidiaries, including Kenvue UK, continued to sell talc-based baby powder despite knowledge of contamination and concealed material risks from consumers.
J&J and Kenvue deny the allegations, maintaining that the talc complied with regulatory standards and did not contain asbestos. Similar litigation in the United States has resulted in numerous verdicts and multi-billion-dollar settlements.
Status update: Both actions were transferred to the General King’s Bench in early January.
KP Law for the claimant class and Jones Day for the defendants.
Case #3 Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered Plc
FL-2020-000038, FL-2021-000011, FL-2022-000009, FL-2022-000023
More than 200 institutional investors, representing over 1,400 funds, brought claims against Standard Chartered seeking damages in excess of £1.5 billion. The claims were brought under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act, alleging that Standard Chartered made misleading statements to the market and failed to disclose material information, resulting in significant investor losses.
Status update: The proceedings were resolved before trial, with the parties reaching a confidential settlement. No liability was determined by the court.
Signature Litigation, PCB Byrne and Brown Rudnick for the claimants and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer for the defendant.
Case #4 Municipio de Mariana, Rodovia Juscelino Kubitschek and others v BHP Group Limited; Município de Coronel Fabriciano and others v BHP Group (UK) Ltd and another
HT-2022-000304, HT-2023-000058
One of the largest environmental group actions ever brought in the English High Court, involving more than 600,000 Brazilian claimants, centres on the catastrophic 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam near Minas Gerais, Brazil. Claimants allege that mining giant BHP Group and its UK-registered predecessor companies are liable for immense environmental damage, loss of life and economic harm arising from the disaster.
In a landmark first-stage judgment delivered on 14 November 2025, Mrs Justice O’Farrell found that BHP Group (UK) Limited and BHP Group Limited were strictly liable as “polluters” under Brazilian environmental law and also liable on a fault-based basis under the Brazilian Civil Code. The English court upheld the validity of waivers and releases signed by claimants who had already been compensated under Brazilian remediation schemes, which may reduce the overall value of UK claims.
Status update: On 19 January 2026, the High Court refused BHP’s application for permission to appeal the liability judgment, leaving the findings on liability intact at first instance. BHP said it will seek permission directly from the Court of Appeal.
The case has now progressed beyond the liability phase, with a second-stage trial on causation and quantum scheduled from October 2026 to March 2027, and a potential third stage dealing with individual damages thereafter; final determinations could extend into 2028 or 2029.
Pogust Goodhead for the claimants. On the defendant side, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer now represent BHP, replacing Slaughters and May, and White & Case LLP for Vale SA.
Case #5 Unilever PLC and others v Givaudan UK Limited and others
Unilever has brought a competition damages claim against major fragrance suppliers Firmenich, Givaudan and Symrise, alleging the existence of a cartel involving price-fixing and other anti-competitive conduct in relation to ingredients used in household and personal-care products. The claim follows a wider investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority into suspected collusion and overcharging in the fragrance and flavourings sector. Unilever alleges that the conduct resulted in inflated input costs and losses across multiple product lines.
Status update: At the time of writing, the dispute appears to remain unacknowledged, with no filings being publicly filed.
Scott+Scott for the claimants. Defendant representation is not currently listed.
Case #6 Aabar Holdings SARL and others v Glencore Plc and others
FL-2022-000024; FL-2022-000025, FL-2022-000026, FL-2022-000027, FL-2023-000004, FL-2023-000009, FL-2023-000024
A group of institutional investors, including Aabar Holdings, brought claims against global natural resources company Glencore under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act. The claimants alleged that Glencore, together with certain former directors, misled the market by failing to disclose corruption, bribery and market manipulation in parts of Africa and South America, inflating the company’s share price and causing investor losses.
Status update: The proceedings remain ongoing. Recent High Court decisions have addressed disclosure and case management issues only and do not determine the substantive claims. All proceedings continue to trial with a trial listed for autumn 2026.
Pallas Partners, BCLP, Stewarts and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for claimants across the various claims. On the defendant side, Clifford Chance for Glencore, Steptoe for Mr Glasenberg, Hogan Lovells for Mr Kalmin and Travers Smith for Mr Hayward.
Case #7 AerCap Ireland Limited v AIG Europe S.A. and others
AerCap brought proceedings against its insurers in respect of the loss of 116 aircraft and 23 engines leased to Russian airlines and left stranded following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The claim formed part of a landmark 12-week “mega trial” in the Commercial Court, involving extensive factual and expert evidence and reflecting the scale and complexity of aviation insurance disputes arising from the conflict.
In its judgment, the High Court awarded AerCap approximately $1.035 billion in damages as well as substantial interest, in addition to substantial sums already recovered through earlier settlements with other insurers. The court found in AerCap’s favour on key coverage issues, while rejecting aspects of the claim relating to the full scope and valuation of losses.
Status update: Several appeals have been filed including by insurers Fidelis Insurance Ireland DAC, Lloyd’s Insurance Company SA and Chubb European Group SE.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer for the claimant, AerCap Ireland. On the defendant side, HFW for AIG Europe SA, Kennedys for Lloyd’s Insurance Company SA, RPC for Fidelis Insurance Ireland DAC, Penningtons Manches Cooper for Swiss Re International SE and Clyde & Co representing Chubb European Group SE.
Case #8 Autonomy Corporation Limited and others v Lynch and another
Hewlett-Packard (HP) brought a claim against the former CEO of Autonomy following its acquisition of the company, alleging breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties as well as fraudulent misrepresentation under section 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act. HP claimed that Autonomy’s financial position had been materially misrepresented through the artificial inflation of revenues, causing HP to significantly overpay for the acquisition.
After one of the longest and most complex civil trials in English legal history, the High Court found in HP’s favour on liability but rejected its case on quantum in part.
Status update: The quantum judgment was handed down on 22 July 2025, but this is not the end of the saga. The court deferred determination of when HP's claim against Autonomy crystallised for the purpose of calculating liability in US dollars, together with outstanding issues on interest and costs.
Travers Smith for the claimants. On the defendant side Simmons & Simmons LLP for Mr Hussain and Clifford Chance for the remaining defendants.
Case #9 LLC EuroChem North-West-2 v Societe Generale S.A. and others
EuroChem brought proceedings against Société Générale and other financial institutions seeking repayment under bonds with a combined value exceeding €280 million. The defendant banks refused payment on the basis that doing so would be unlawful under EU sanctions imposed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including sanctions targeting EuroChem’s founder.
The Commercial Court ruled in favour of the banks, finding that the sanctions regime prevented lawful payment under the bonds notwithstanding the contractual obligations.
Status update: EuroChem filed an appeal in late 2025, with the appeal hearing scheduled to be heard by the end of September 2026.
Omnia Strategy represent LLC EuroChem and EuroChem Group. On the defendant side, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer represent Société Générale, Clifford Chance for ING Bank, McDermott Will & Schulte for Tecnimont SpA and MT Russia LCC.
Case #10 Feldman and another v Addleshaw Goddard LLP and another
Former Entain executives Lee Feldman and Kenneth Alexander have brought claims against the company itself and its former legal advisers, Addleshaw Goddard, alleging the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. The claimants allege that the disclosures led to the collapse of a proposed transaction valued at over £600 million involving Entain’s former Turkish business, this is in the wider context of regulatory scrutiny over alleged bribery prevention failures.
The pair are seeking declaratory relief, delivery up and a disclosure order to obtain access to the information they allege was improperly shared.
Status update: Feldman and Alexander failed in a separate claim against the Gambling Commission (Feldman and another v Gambling Commission), in which they accused the regulator of breaching their right to privacy. The pair have since been charged with fraud and bribery, with a trial due to begin in 2028.
Quillon Law for the claimants. On the defendant-side, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer represents Addleshaw Goddard and McDermott Will & Schulte for Entain.
Case #11 The Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Rajaan and others
In one of the largest and most high-profile cases heard by the Commercial Court, Kuwait’s Public Institution for Social Security brought proceedings against former Kuwaiti banker Fahad Al-Rajaan and others in connection with allegations of corruption, bribery and misappropriation of public funds. The claims alleged that Mr Al-Rajaan received substantial illegal bribes in breach of his duties, causing significant losses.
Status update: At the time of writing, the case continues in the courtroom through early 2026, having commenced in March 2025.
Stewarts for the claimant. PCB Byrne for the primary defendants. Fladgate, RPC, Dechert, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, A&O Shearman, Seladore Legal, Slaughter and May, Milbank, Hogan Lovells represent clients on the defendant-side.
Case #12 Building Design Partnership Limited v Kingspan Insulation Limited and others
Architecture and engineering firm BDP issued a claim against insulation manufacturer Kingspan, alleging breaches of statutory duties arising from allegedly dishonest and misleading statements concerning the suitability of an insulation product for use in high-rise buildings. Following findings of the Grenfell Inquiry, the product was found to be unsuitable for such use. BDP alleges it relied on those representations when specifying the product in the development of a building.
Status update: The claim is ongoing, with BDP seeking damages in excess of £1.8 million.
Weightmans for the claimant and Fenwick Elliott for the defendants.
Case #13 Ferriday and others v Entain plc
Shareholders of Entain brought a group action under sections 90 and 90A of the FSMA 2000 following the company’s deferred prosecution agreement with the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to alleged bribery offences connected to its former Turkish-facing business. The claimants allege that Entain failed to disclose material information regarding bribery and corruption risks, and that those omissions caused an artificial inflation of the company’s share price and subsequent investor losses when the issues became public.
Status update: The proceedings are at an early stage with amended particulars of claim filed in September of 2025.
Fox Williams for the claimant group and Clifford Chance for the defendant.
Case #14 Stonegate Pub Company Limited and others v Marsh Limited
Pub chain Stonegate and subsidiaries launched a multi-million-pound claim against its insurance broker, Marsh, alleging professional negligence in failing to arrange adequate business-interruption insurance ahead of the Covid-19 pandemic. The claimants allege Marsh failed to ensure that all relevant Stonegate Group companies were properly listed as insured entities, resulting in substantial uninsured losses through the pandemic.
Status update: The claim is ongoing and one of many concerning business-interruption claims as the six-year limitation period looms.
Stewarts for the claimants and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer for the defendant.
Case #15 Castleton v Post Office Limited and others
Former sub-postmaster Lee Castleton has brought a claim against the Post Office and Fujitsu arising out of the wrongful finding of alleged fraud based on data produced by the Horizon IT system. Mr Castleton was forced into bankruptcy following litigation brought by the Post Office, which subsequent inquiries and findings have shown was founded on defective and unreliable system data.
Status update: The claim is ongoing and Mr Castleton is seeking both the civil judgment and the bankruptcy order against him to be set aside on these grounds. The proceedings form part of the wider fallout from the Horizon scandal and continuing civil litigation against the Post Office and its technology supplier.
Simons Muirhead Burton for the claimant, Pinsent Masons for the Post Office and Morrison & Foerster for Fujitsu.
Trusted firms behind the most followed cases
The top tracked cases list also shines a spotlight on the law firms driving these disputes, with several firms appearing multiple times, demonstrating their prominence in high stakes litigation and their trusted role in handling some of the most complex matters of the year. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer tops the list with six appearances, followed by Clifford Chance with four. Stewarts (3) stand out on the claimant side.
Staying ahead of High Court litigation with Solomonic
To stay updated on these claims or track those that have reached judgment or settlement, you can monitor the parties involved, follow the law firms and interrogate the decisions including judge comments on barristers and experts. The Solomonic platform offers limitless possibilities for a wide range of use cases - reach out today to explore its flagship monitoring and data capabilities.
Want to stay informed and be among the first to see the Year in Review? Our report will also reveal the top issues, law firm rankings and the biggest trends of the year so far. Sign up here to get notified:
Claim details correct as of Friday 30th January 2026. Solomonic’s analysis includes all publicly available King’s Bench and Chancery Division claims, such as (but not limited to) the electronic court filing service or published judgments.