The most tracked High Court cases of 2024
The cases everyone is watching and the law firms involved - Solomonic’s most tracked of 2024 revealed today.
As we gear up for the release of the highly anticipated Solomonic Year in Review, we reveal the top 15 most tracked High Court cases of 2024 on the Solomonic platform. The list highlights the high-profile disputes defining the legal sphere, attracting significant attention from the nation’s leading legal professionals and firms.
Among the cases are landmark FSMA claims alleging corporate misconduct, the largest group action in the history of the English courts, a precedent-setting AI copyright infringement case and the billion-dollar mega-trial over stranded aircraft in Russia. The lineup also includes the ‘Dieselgate’ litigation, construction disputes over defective cladding, a securities case tied to global corruption scandals and major high-value commercial disputes.
Solomonic is used by over 8,000 users from more than 100 leading firms and these cases reflect the most closely monitored high-stakes legal battles of the year that should be on everyone’s radar.
1. Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability Al Ltd
A trailblazing case concerning AI and copyright infringement: Getty Images claims that LLM (large language model) developer Stability AI unlawfully scraped millions of images from their websites to train and develop its AI model ‘Stable Diffusion’ without consent.
The outcome of Getty’s claim, along with similar cases, may influence updates to the UK’s copyright regime to address AI technology challenges. As one of the most closely watched cases, it has the potential to set a significant precedent for future AI-related copyright issues.
Fieldfisher represent the claimants and Bird & Bird represent the defendant.
2. Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered Plc
FL-2020-000038, FL-2021-000011, FL-2022-000009, FL-2022-000023
More than 200 investors are suing Standard Chartered for allegedly making misleading statements about sanctions compliance from 2007 to 2019. The investors claim they suffered losses of around £1.45 billion due to untrue or misleading statements and omissions in the company's market disclosures, leading to claims under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
This lawsuit follows Standard Chartered's 2019 agreement to pay $1.1 billion to US and UK authorities for sanctions breaches involving Iran and other countries.
Signature Litigation is acting for the claimants and Herbert Smith Freehills for the defendant.
3. Municipio de Mariana and others v BHP Group Ltd and another
Considered the largest group action by claimant size in the English Courts, over 600,000 Brazilian individuals and businesses are involved in the class action suing mining company BHP for £36 billion in damages over the 2015 collapse of Brazil’s Fundāo dam. The collapse resulted in the deaths of 19 people and the dumping of over 40 million cubic metres of iron ore waste in the Doce river.
The claimants’ lawyers affirmed jurisdiction despite BHP’s challenges, as the company’s headquarters were in the UK at the time of the disaster.
The first-stage trial on liability began in October 2024 heard before Mrs Justice O'Farrell in the Technology & Construction Court and is ongoing as we write.
Pogust Goodhead for the claimants and Slaughter and May for the defendants. Part 20 defendants, Vale SA, are represented by US law firm White & Case.
4. AerCap Ireland Ltd v AIG Europe S.A. and others
AerCap, the world's largest aircraft leasing company, is leading a multibillion-dollar legal battle in the Commercial Court to recover over $4 billion in losses from insurers, including AIG Europe and Lloyd's. The case involves claims under "Lessor Policies" for 116 aircraft and 23 engines stranded in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. This "mega trial" which consolidates six actions by various aviation lessors, seeks compensation for leased assets that Russian airlines failed to return after the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Herbert Smith Freehills 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.
5. Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust and others v Barclays Plc
The dispute stems from allegations of Barclays' misconduct in operating the "LX Liquidity Cross" dark pool trading system, which involved misleading disclosures and omissions from 2008 onwards.
On 18 December 2024, a consent order dismissed the case after a confidential settlement. This followed Mr. Justice Leech's decision to deny the claimants permission to appeal his judgment, which struck out £330m in claims for dishonest delay under section 90A/Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
Signature Litigation for the claimants and Latham & Watkins for Barclays.
6. Magomedov and others v Kuzovkov and others
In one of the largest claims in Commercial Court history, jailed Russian tycoon Ziyavudin Magomedov sought damages of $15.9 billion, alleging his assets, including stakes in major Russian transport businesses FESCO and the Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port, were unlawfully seized while he was in prison. On January 17, 2025, Mr. Justice Bright dismissed the case after a three-week hearing, ruling there was no serious issue to be tried, no jurisdictional basis for the claims and that England & Wales was not the appropriate forum.
Seladore Legal has been acting for the claimants.
On the defendant-side: Mishcon de Reya for Mr Kuzovkov; Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle for Transneft PJSC; Herbert Smith Freehills for TPG; Fox Williams for Ms Mammad-Zade; Fieldfisher for Felix Group, Mr Rabinovich and Ermenossa Investments; Candey for Halimeda International; Quillon Law for PJSC Far-Eastern Shipping Company (FESCO); Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for DP World Russia FZCO; Cooke, Young & Keidan for Domidias and Mr Severilov; PCB Byrne for State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom; Gresham Legal for Mr Garber and Garber Hannam & Partners LLC.
7. Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others (also known as the Pan-NOx litigation)
QB-2022-002405 and others
The ‘dieselgate’ class action involving over a million claimants against car manufacturers, including Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Ford, Nissan and Renault, alleges that diesel vehicles were mis-sold with "prohibited defeat devices" (PDDs) that manipulated emissions tests to conceal harmful nitrogen oxide levels. To date, the High Court has granted 13 group litigation orders (GLOs) to manage the cases and is scheduled for a 10-week technical trial later in 2025.
Many law firms are involved in representing claimants across the GLOs, including: Leigh Day, Pogust Goodhead, Keller Lenkner, Milberg, Slater & Gordon and Hausfeld.
Herbert Smith Freehills represent Mercedes-Benz, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer represent Volkswagen, McGuireWoods London represent Ford and Hogan Lovells represent Nissan and Signature Litigation represent Renault. CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang, Linklaters, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Taylor Wessing and DLA Piper also represent defendants across the diesel emission cases.
8. 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
Institutional investors, including Aabar Holdings, have filed multiple claims against Glencore under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). They allege that Glencore, along with certain former directors, misled investors by concealing corruption and market manipulation in countries including Nigeria, Brazil, and South Sudan to facilitate its merger with Xstrata. Investors claim to have lost over £2 billion when the misconduct came to light.
In a key preliminary hearing ahead of the first case management conference, the High Court addressed whether Glencore could claim privilege against shareholder claimants or if the so-called "shareholder rule" prevented it. The court ruled that the "shareholder rule" does not exist in English law, confirming that shareholders have no automatic right to access a company's privileged documents.
Pallas Partners, BCLP, Stewarts and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan are involved in representing claimants across the various claims. On the defendant-side, Steptoe for Mr Glasenberg, Hogan Lovells for Mr Kalmin and Travers Smith for Mr Hayward. Clifford Chance is acting for Glencore.
9. Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd v Prater Ltd and others
Construction company Willmott Dixon filed a claim against several subcontractors, including Prater, Lindner, AECOM and Sheppard Robson, to recover £46 million for the costs of fixing defective cladding in a residential development in south London. The company sought damages for the use of unsafe materials in the building's exterior walls. The defendants denied liability and in early January 2025, the parties reached a settlement under a Tomlin order.
Simmons & Simmons represented the claimant. On the defendant-side, Kennedys for Prater and Lindner, Beale & Company Solicitors represented AECOM and Mayer Brown represented Sheppard Robson.
10. WRBC Corporate Member Ltd v AXA XL Syndicate Ltd and others
WR Berkley, a Lloyd’s of London syndicate, filed a significant business interruption claim for losses linked to the Covid-19 pandemic. The claim, which is against a group of underwriters and insurers, including AXA XL, Brit, Liberty, Chaucer and Everest, stems from the widespread disruption businesses faced during the pandemic. WR Berkley is seeking at least $90 million in compensation.
Clifford Chance for the claimant. DWF for defendants including AXA XL, Brit, Liberty, Chaucer and Everest, and Kennedys for Validus Reinsurance.
11. London Capital & Finance Plc and others v Thomson and others
The administrators of London Capital & Finance (LCF), the investment company which collapsed in 2019 after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) intervened, uncovering unregulated mini-bonds and misleading promises of returns, launched a claim against the company’s former executives in 2020.
In November 2024, the High Court ruled in favour of LCF and the joint administrators of London Oil & Gas Ltd (LOG), finding that LCF’s former CEO and others engaged in fraud, misappropriated funds and ran a Ponzi scheme. The defendants also used artificial transactions to conceal the fund misappropriation.
Settlements were reached with several of the original defendants before the hearing.
Mishcon de Reya for the claimants.
12. FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company
This case involves the lease of four Airbus aircraft to VietJet under a Japanese Operating Lease with Call Option (JOLCO) structure. FW Aviation sought to recover over $190 million and repossess the aircraft. The High Court ruled in favour of FW Aviation, affirming the valid lease termination and the assignment of rights to the FitzWalter group, while dismissing VietJet's counterclaim for relief from forfeiture. VietJet has since appealed the decision, which was granted in October 2024.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for the claimant and Elborne Mitchell for the defendant.
13. Commission Recovery Ltd v Marks & Clerk LLP and Long Acre Renewals
Commission Recovery Ltd (CRL) sued IP law firm Marks & Clerk LLP and its associate firm, Long Acre Renewals, alleging bribery, secret commissions and breach of fiduciary duty and that commission arrangements were not disclosed to customers. CRL claimed Marks & Clerk secretly referred clients' IP renewals to CPA Global in exchange for undisclosed commissions. The High Court and Court of Appeal allowed the case to proceed as an "opt-out" representative action. After the Supreme Court denied Marks & Clerk's appeal, the parties reached a settlement under a Tomlin order in October 2024, with no admission of liability by Marks & Clerk.
Signature Litigation for the claimant and Cooke, Young & Keidan for the defendant.
14. Arena Television Ltd (in liquidation) and another v Bank of Scotland plc and another
Arena Television collapsed in late 2021 with £280 million in debt. Liquidators Kroll Advisory allege that Lloyds Banking Group facilitated the misappropriation of over £1.2 billion in asset-based lending by Arena TV's directors.
Stewarts for the claimants, Arena Television, and Eversheds Sutherland for the defendants, Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank. Part 20 defendants, Sentinel Broadcast, are represented by Isadore Goldman.
15. California State Teachers' Retirement System and another v Boohoo Group Plc
A group of institutional investors have brought a claim against Boohoo asserting breaches of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), alleging the company failed to disclose low wages at its Leicester supplier factories. When this information became public, Boohoo’s share price dropped significantly, resulting in investor losses. The claim cites Boohoo’s misleading statements or delayed disclosures under sections 90 and 90A of FSMA.
Fox Williams for the claimants and Herbert Smith Freehills for the defendant, Boohoo.