Top 15 most tracked High Court cases of H1 2026
The disputes commanding the most attention from the nation's leading firms and practitioners.
The 15 most tracked High Court cases of H1 2026 on the Solomonic platform, powered by insight from over 10,000 litigation professionals, offer a snapshot of where the legal profession's attention is concentrated right now.
Unsurprisingly, some big litigation stories continue to feature on the radar. The long-running claim against Glencore has retained attention following a significant ruling on legal privilege, while the Johnson & Johnson talc litigation and the Fundão dam claim against BHP continue to draw sustained interest following recent procedural developments in each.
Building safety liability features in three entries, spanning Building Safety Act claims against structural engineers and contractors and a dispute over legacy responsibility for fire-safety remediation costs. Three further entries trace back to the collapse of a single bridging lender, whose founder stands accused of siphoning hundreds of millions of pounds through a web of related companies. Competition law also looms large, with claims against both Microsoft and Sportradar reflecting sustained scrutiny of dominant platforms' commercial practices.
Together, the list reflects the breadth and scale of litigation currently moving through the High courts of England and Wales.
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 so far, revealing the topics, organisations 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 H1 2026
Case #1: 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 returning entry, the ongoing securities litigation against Glencore Plc – one of the largest shareholder actions – has retained attention this year following a significant ruling on the scope of legal advice privilege. Aabar and a group of institutional investors brought claims against Glencore and several of its former directors under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The claims allege that Glencore's public disclosures misstated or omitted matters relating to admitted and alleged misconduct by its subsidiaries in Africa and South America.
Status update: On 16 April 2026, Mr Justice Picken handed down a further judgment holding that certain intra-client communications may attract legal advice privilege, extending privilege protection to a broader category of internal documents than previously assumed.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Pallas Partners, BCLP and Stewarts act for claimants across the various claims. On the defendant side, Clifford Chance and WilmerHale for Glencore, Steptoe for Mr Glasenberg, Hogan Lovells for Mr Kalmin and Travers Smith for Mr Hayward.
Case #2: White and others v Uber London Limited and others
CL-2024-000252; CL-2024-000366
Around 13,000 London black cab drivers, together with linked claims from former private hire operators Kabbee and Iride, are pursuing Uber for up to £2.1 billion. The claims allege Uber obtained and operated its Transport for London private hire licence unlawfully between 2012 and 2018 and unfairly diverted business from licensed cab drivers.
Status update: A preliminary trial on limitation was heard on 29-30 June 2026, with Uber arguing the claims fall outside the six-year limitation period, while the drivers argue fraud or deliberate concealment postponed the limitation clock.
Mishcon de Reya for the claimants and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer representing Uber.
Case #3: Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited and others v Ardmore Construction Limited and others
Crest Nicholson sought Building Liability Orders (BLOs) against companies associated with Ardmore Construction (“ACL”), the contractor responsible for fire safety and structural defects at the Admiralty Quarter development in Portsmouth.
Status update: In a landmark judgment on 1 April 2026, Mr Justice Constable granted Crest an "anticipatory" BLO against ACL's associated group companies, confirming that a BLO can be made before underlying liability is finally established. On 8 May 2026, the court refused permission to appeal, including certification for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.
Gateley for Crest Nicholson. RPC for Yuanda UK Company, Keoghs for David Richmond and Partners.
Case #4: Market Financial Solutions Limited (in administration) v Raja
This is the first of three interconnected entries on this list tracing back to the collapse of bridging lender Market Financial Solutions ("MFS"), founded by Paresh Raja. MFS entered administration in February 2026 amid fraud allegations, following the earlier administration of two Raja-owned funding vehicles, Zircon Bridging and Amber Bridging. Creditors allege potential double-pledging of assets, mismanagement and diversion of funds through Raja-connected borrower entities.
Status update: A worldwide freezing order of up to £1.3 billion was obtained against Raja in March 2026, with parallel orders in Dubai and a travel ban.
Kirkland & Ellis for MFS and Mishcon de Reya for Mr Raja.
Case #5: Bellway Homes Limited v URS Corporation Limited and others
Bellway is suing for £53.4 million over structural defects in the concrete frame of City Peninsula, a 229-apartment development on Greenwich Peninsula, London. The litigation closely follows the Supreme Court's May 2025 ruling in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, which confirmed that developers can pursue design consultants for remediation costs even without a continuing proprietary interest in the affected buildings.
DAC Beachcroft for the claimant and DLA Piper for the defendants. Weightmans and B P Collins for the part 20 defendants.
Case #6: Mercuria Energy Trading S.A. v Baltic Exchange Information Services Limited
Mercuria, one of the world's largest energy and commodity traders, is suing the Baltic Exchange over its TD3C benchmark, the crude tanker index for Gulf-to-China voyages. Mercuria alleges the Baltic continued publishing TD3C without adjusting for the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East from February 2026, causing extreme and unrepresentative volatility that has distorted shipping and freight derivatives markets. Losses are estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Status update: At a preliminary hearing in May, the Baltic Exchange argued the litigation itself was damaging market confidence. On 22 May 2026, the Financial List granted an expedited trial, now listed for late October 2026.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for the claimant and HFW for the defendant.
Case #7: Aberdeen City Council v Hermes Infrastructure II GP LLP and another
Aberdeen City Council, as administering authority of the North East Scotland Pension Fund, is suing Hermes GPE LLP and Hermes Infrastructure II GP LLP over the fund's 2019 investment in a portfolio of five Swedish onshore wind farms. The Council alleges the investment was negligently classified as a conservative, lower-risk "Core Portfolio" asset, when it in fact carried a materially higher and asymmetric risk profile.
Brodies for the claimant and Linklaters for the defendants.
Case #8: Slack Technologies LLC and others v Microsoft Corporation and others
Salesforce and its workplace messaging platform Slack are suing Microsoft alleging anticompetitive tying and bundling of Microsoft Teams with the Microsoft 365 suite. The claim follows Slack's original 2020 complaint to the European Commission, which led Microsoft to unbundle Teams within the EU.
Slaughter and May for the claimants and Linklaters for the defendants.
Case #9: Market Financial Solutions Limited (Administration Application)
This is the underlying insolvency proceeding at the centre of the MFS scandal (see cases #4 and #10). MFS itself applied to enter administration in February 2026, citing a banking-related procedural issue, but that application was overtaken by an urgent competing application from Zircon Bridging and Amber Bridging, two Raja-owned funding vehicles already in administration, alleging serious mismanagement and irregularities in MFS's handling of loan collection accounts.
Kirkland & Ellis for the applicants. Edwin Coe for Market Financial Solutions and Quastels for Mr Patel.
Case #10: London Bridging Limited (in administration) v Raja
London Bridging Limited (“LBL”) was a special-purpose vehicle within the MFS group that entered administration in March 2026. The claim alleges that Raja caused or permitted the misappropriation of approximately £242.1 million of trust monies from LBL to companies under his control, in breach of his fiduciary and statutory duties.
Jones Day for the claimant and Mishcon de Reya for Mr Raja.
Case #11: Altenar Technologies Limited and another v Sportradar Group AG and others
Sportsbook technology supplier Altenar has sued Swiss sports data giant Sportradar in the US and UK, alleging that Sportradar abused its dominant market position as the exclusive official data supplier to the NBA, NHL, MLB and ATP by denying Altenar access to the live data required to generate betting odds and operate its US sportsbook platform.
Geradin Partners for the claimant.
Case #12: Jo Malone INC and others v ITX UK Ltd and others
The claim alleges trade mark infringement, passing off and breach of contract arising from Zara's "Jo Loves" fragrance collaboration with Malone, which used wording including "Created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves" in product marketing. Estée Lauder acquired the "Jo Malone" brand and associated name rights in 1999, when Malone sold her original eponymous business.
Status update: ITX/Zara filed its defence in May 2026, arguing the claim is unfounded and that Malone retains an absolute right to use her own name to identify herself and her work, with no material risk of consumer confusion.
Beck Greener for the claimants. Winston Taylor and Addleshaw Goddard for the defendants.
Case #13: Davies and others v Johnson & Johnson and others; Fuschillo v Johnson & Johnson and others
KB-2026-000030; KB-2026-000032
A group claim brought on behalf of claimants who allege they developed malignant mesothelioma or ovarian cancer after using Johnson's Baby Powder, alleging the product was contaminated with asbestos and other harmful particles, and that the defendants continued marketing it as safe despite knowing the risks.
Status update: In a judgment handed down on 10 June 2026, Mrs Justice Hill and Senior Master Cook approved a Group Litigation Order to manage the claims, reflecting the scale of the litigation.
KP Law for the claimant class and Jones Day for the defendants.
Case #14: Avant Homes Limited and others v Lloyds Banking Group Plc and others
Avant Homes Group is suing Lloyds Banking Group over responsibility for post-Grenfell fire-safety remediation costs. Avant argues Lloyds should bear part of the liability because most of the affected developments were built before December 2014, when Lloyds owned Avant (having inherited the business via the 2009 HBOS takeover, before selling it to a private-equity consortium).
Walker Morris for the claimants and Addleshaw Goddard for the defendants.
Case #15: 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 group claims ever brought in the English courts: around 620,000 Brazilian claimants, 31 municipalities and roughly 2,000 businesses, suing BHP over the catastrophic 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Minas Gerais – operated by Samarco, a joint venture between BHP and Vale.
Status update: In November 2025, Mrs Justice O'Farrell handed down the Stage 1 liability judgment, finding BHP liable under Brazilian law on both strict liability and fault-based grounds, and rejecting BHP's limitation defence. The High Court refused BHP’s permission to appeal that judgment on 19 January 2026. BHP separately won a narrower Court of Appeal victory in March 2026, ending contempt proceedings relating to allegations it supported parallel Brazilian litigation intended to block the municipalities from pursuing claims in London. On 6 May 2026, the Court of Appeal refused BHP permission to appeal the substantive liability judgment, finding no real prospect of success and exhausting BHP's ordinary routes of appeal on liability. The case now proceeds to Stage 2 on causation, loss and quantum.
Pogust Goodhead and Bailey Glasser International for the claimants*. On the defendant side, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer for BHP and White & Case LLP for Vale SA.
*As of the time of writing, Pogust Goodhead's representation of the claimant class is challenged, following an announcement by Bailey Glasser International (BGI) that a claimant committee has appointed it in Pogust Goodhead's place. Pogust Goodhead disputes that the committee had the authority to do so and says it continues to act for the group.
Trusted firms behind the most followed cases
Across the 15 cases on this list, Mishcon de Reya leads, appearing three times – acting for the claimant drivers in White v Uber and separately for Paresh Raja in actions arising from the Market Financial Solutions collapse.
A cluster of firms follow with two appearances each. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Kirkland & Ellis each act for claimants(/applicants) twice. On the defendant side, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Linklaters and Addleshaw Goddard each appear twice. Jones Day appears on both sides of the list, acting for a claimant in one case and for the defendants in another.
Beyond this group, a further 28 firms each secured a single instruction including BCLP, Clifford Chance, Slaughter and May, Hogan Lovells, DLA Piper, White & Case and HFW.
The law firms handling the top 15 most tracked High Court cases of H1 2026
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. Reach out today to explore its flagship monitoring and data capabilities.
Solomonic will not be publishing a half-year report this year, having moved to a quarterly update cadence. The Q3 2026 update will be published in early October.
Claim details correct as of Friday 11th September 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.