London International Disputes Week 2026

1. International scope: The session covered sanctions regimes in the UK, US, Russia, and China, discussing recent case law and highlighting the need for a cross-border perspective.

2. Proactive enforcement: Authorities like OFAC and OFSI are increasingly using their own data monitoring to initiate enforcement actions, not just relying on voluntary disclosures, with an increasing focus on circumvention practices.

3. Complex technology Controls: US technology transfer rules are broad and difficult to enforce, especially regarding exports to China.

4. China’s countermeasures: China’s framework has been evolving in the past three years, in particular, PRC courts are more willing to step in to enforce certain laws and regulations.

5. Russia: Outlined how Russian courts approach sanctions related disputes and jurisdiction, the broad jurisdictional tests under Article 248.1 APC, the use of reverse piercing and “C type” accounts in enforcement, and the key open issues pending before the Russian Supreme Court and the CJEU.

6. Industrial policy impact: Sanctions and export controls are being used to encourage domestic investment and shape industrial policy, particularly in the tech sector.

1. Certification is not the end of the story: Certification may be a critical battleground, but it is not a predictor of ultimate success, certification shapes the case, giving defendants the chance to test class definition, challenge methodology and identify issues that may matter later.

2. Disclosure in collective actions is distinct from other types of claim: In large-scale consumer claims, defendants may need to deal with historic systems, very large volumes of customer data and complex datasets. Early thinking around data preservation, disclosure strategy and expert-led data requests is essential.

3. Witness evidence can be central: The panel discussed how factual witnesses can help ground a case in commercial reality, explaining how the business operated, how decisions were made, and why particular customer or pricing decisions were taken.

4. Expert evidence needs to be planned early: The case showed the importance of engaging experts early to understand what data is needed, and how different expert disciplines interact.

5. The CAT process is still evolving: The discussion covered certification, opt-in / opt-out issues, disclosure, factual evidence, expert hot-tubbing, page limits and the practical demands of taking a collective action all the way to trial.

1. Evolution and limitations of UK PPP/PFI models: The UK’s PPP/PFI models face challenges from aging infrastructure and inflexible contracts. The panel called for more pragmatic, partnership-based approaches, learning from international flexibility and formal rebalancing mechanisms.

2. Dispute resolution and contractual complexity: Disputes often arise from complex, misaligned PPP contracts. The panel advocated for relational contracting, early technical engagement, and contract simplification to prevent disputes, as current frameworks struggle with operational and performance issues.

3. Handback challenges and stakeholder expectations: Handback of PPP assets is contentious due to mismatched expectations and ambiguous contracts. The panel urged clear policy guidance and standardised requirements to reduce disputes and ensure smoother project transitions.

4. Future model reforms and regulatory proposals: Panellists proposed eliminating problematic contract mechanisms, introducing a sector regulator, and standardising contracts. Depoliticising infrastructure delivery and treating it as a regulated utility could attract investment and improve outcomes.

5. Technology, talent, and stakeholder collaboration: AI and digital tools can improve PPP management, but attracting young talent remains difficult. The panel stressed the need for industry stability, positive engagement, and better stakeholder alignment to foster collaboration.

1. Rapid growth and market evolution: Private credit has expanded significantly since the financial crisis, filling gaps left by banks and now representing a major, diverse, and growing segment of the lending market.

2. Regulatory scrutiny and transparency concerns: Regulators, especially the FCA, are increasingly focused on private credit due to its scale, lack of transparency, and the bespoke nature of loans, with particular attention to valuation practices and conflicts of interest.

3. Weaker covenants and competitive dynamics: Intense competition among lenders has led to weaker covenants and more flexible terms, especially in larger deals, raising concerns about risk management and potential restructuring challenges.

4. Restructuring and disputes increasing: Rising interest rates and refinancing pressures are leading to more financial stress for borrowers, resulting in increased restructuring activity and a higher likelihood of disputes among lenders, funds, and investors.

5. Conflicts of interest and governance: Conflicts of interest – such as asset allocation, valuation subjectivity, and cross-fund transactions – are a key regulatory concern, with expectations for robust identification, disclosure, and management to protect investors and market integrity.

1. Rapid growth and market evolution: Private credit has expanded significantly since the financial crisis, filling gaps left by banks and now representing a major, diverse, and growing segment of the lending market.

2. Regulatory scrutiny and transparency concerns: Regulators, especially the FCA, are increasingly focused on private credit due to its scale, lack of transparency, and the bespoke nature of loans, with particular attention to valuation practices and conflicts of interest.

3. Weaker covenants and competitive dynamics: Intense competition among lenders has led to weaker covenants and more flexible terms, especially in larger deals, raising concerns about risk management and potential restructuring challenges.

4. Restructuring and disputes increasing: Rising interest rates and refinancing pressures are leading to more financial stress for borrowers, resulting in increased restructuring activity and a higher likelihood of disputes among lenders, funds, and investors.

5. Conflicts of interest and governance: Conflicts of interest – such as asset allocation, valuation subjectivity, and cross-fund transactions – are a key regulatory concern, with expectations for robust identification, disclosure, and management to protect investors and market integrity.

1. Early case assessment focus: In-house teams are using AI primarily to assess claims early (complexity, cost, resourcing) and decide whether to handle matters internally or instruct external counsel.

2. Efficiency over replacement: AI is valued for handling high-volume tasks (document review, summaries, bundling), enabling lawyers to focus on higher-value analysis rather than replacing legal judgment.

3. Client expectations shifting: In-house teams increasingly expect external counsel to use AI to improve speed, quality, and efficiency, with transparency around how it adds value.

4. Value vs cost tension: While AI can improve quality and speed, clients still expect cost savings, creating pressure on firms to demonstrate efficiency without reducing perceived value.

5. Human oversight remains critical: AI is widely treated as a “junior assistant,” requiring careful supervision due to risks like hallucinations, poor prompting, and lack of privilege protection.

1. Black box liability risk: AI systems operate with opaque, non-transparent decision-making (“black box”), making it difficult to explain outputs, prove causation, and assign liability when harm occurs.

2. Scale drives class actions: The widespread adoption of AI across consumer-facing products, combined with large user bases and significant data processing, creates the conditions for mass harm and therefore increases the likelihood of class actions.

3. EU framework enabling claims: The combination of the EU AI Act, Product Liability Directive, and Representative Actions Directive creates a structured pathway for AI-related litigation, particularly through follow-on claims based on regulatory findings.

4. Evidence and causation challenges: Claimants will face significant hurdles in proving harm and causation due to technical complexity, multi-layered value chains, and the need for expert (data science and behavioural) evidence.

5. UK slower adoption, emerging risk: Despite a slower regulatory approach, AI-related claims are expected to increase under existing frameworks (e.g. data protection, competition, employment).

1. SLAPPs enforcement: Recent SRA prosecutions for SLAPPs were dismissed or overturned, highlighting possible SRA overreach in this area. It remains to be seen whether the SRA will continue to pursue its SLAPPs agenda with vigour.

2. Mazur case and delegation of litigation tasks: The Court of Appeal Mazur decision is perhaps the most important case concerning the provision of legal services that has come before the courts in recent years. The Court of Appeal clarified that authorised persons must retain responsibility and supervise delegated litigation tasks, prompting law firms to maintain clear processes, audit trails and heighten supervision of tasks undertaken by unauthorised individuals.

3. Section 44B and privileged document disclosure: The Carter Ruck challenge questions the SRA’s powers to require law firms to disclose their client’s privileged material under Section 44B. If approved, this will represent a significant clarification of the law, with serious ramifications for SRA investigations and how law firms respond to s44B notices.

4. Dentons case and AML supervision changes: The Court of Appeal in Dentons agreed with the SDT that “there is an inherent requirement of seriousness in considering whether a solicitor's conduct amounts to a breach of SRA principles or the mandatory provisions of the SRA Code”. More generally, the transition of AML supervision from the SRA to the FCA raises concerns about dual enforcement by the SRA and FCA, and the practical implications for law firms.

5. Criticism and SRA’s evolving approach: Recent criticism of the SRA following Axiom Ince, SSB Law, and PM Law, together with the high-profile SLAPPs failures, and increased complaints have prompted new leadership at the SRA to acknowledge challenges, signalling a possible shift in regulatory approach to address profession-wide concerns.