As the English Commercial Court reopens after the summer vacation, we take a look at insights from the year so far.

This years’ statistics confirm that the Commercial Court remains a leading forum for resolution of disputes for businesses and HNW individuals alike. A return to prominence of Russian litigants and a significant increase in the English courts being used to resolve intra-Gulf disputes appears to be just one factor contributing to the increase in the workload of the Commercial Court. However, the Court has continued its responsive approach of recent years, and recent changes to the Court’s claims management practices appear already to be working to manage inflation. While that can be regarded as good news for those hoping for swift(er) resolution, litigants should be wary of how the value of their claim may impact where it is heard, and the likelihood of needing to engage in negotiated dispute resolution at some point in their journey from issue to judgment.

Caseload

Details provided in the Commercial Court’s latest report into its caseload and practices issued earlier this year, confirm that the workload of the Commercial Court remains high: 743 new claims were issued in 2023/2024. That is down from 2022/2023 (885 new claims issued), although the prior period figure was likely inflated by Covid business interruption claims. In the same 2023/2024 period, the Court issued 290 substantive judgments, an increase on the previous year. That said, more recent data suggests the Court’s caseload has been easing somewhat in 2025, following a change of policy to divert a greater number of cases to the London Circuit Commercial Court (“LCCC”). As its name would suggest, the LCCC is also a specialist court, staffed with judges drawn from the ranks of the senior circuit bench.  In the Court’s 2022/2023 report, the judiciary noted that “consideration [was] being given to increasing the (then) £5 million guideline threshold [for claims issued in the Commercial Court], to reflect inflation and workflow”. Words became actions this year, and as of  1 July 2025, the Court’s practice has been to transfer claims of less than £7 million in value to LCCC, unless factors such as legal or factual complexity, convenience or public importance justify retaining the matter in the Commercial Court. Recent reporting from Solomonic would suggest claimant behaviour began to change even before the foreshadowed policy shift was formalised. In the first half of 2025, the number of public claims issued in the Commercial Court dropped to (approximately) 175, compared to 280 in the first half of 2024. Meanwhile, the number of public claims issued in the LCCC jumped from around 160 to 210.

These trends have important practical implications for litigants. As before, the parties have a right to be heard on any proposed transfer. Parties should consider with their legal representation early on whether a transfer ‘up’ or ‘down’ would be to their strategic benefit, particularly if the claim value is in the borderline range (circa £5-£7 million).  While some may want to take advantage of the Commercial Court’s specialist experience and prestige, others may be attracted to greater case management flexibility and potentially lower costs on the LCCC track.

Diversity

The work of the Commercial Court continues to be predominantly international, with approximately 75% of its caseload in 2023/2024 involving cross-border disputes.

According to Portland Communications’ annual study (published earlier this year and covering April 2024 to March 2025, a period that partially overlaps with the Court’s own reporting) this was a record-breaking year for diversity. Proceedings before the London Commercial Court featured parties from 93 different nationalities, with 62% of litigants originating from outside the UK. This marks the second-highest proportion of international litigants since Portland began collecting data in 2018.

A notable development is the resurgence of Russian litigants in the Commercial Court. Last year’s report by Portland highlighted a sharp decline in their presence and the extent to which they had legal counsel, with only 30% appearing with legal representation. That is, we suggest, an unsurprising outcome given the impact of the sanctions regime, which both litigants and their legal advisers have had to consider. This earlier period also saw the emergence of early test cases, including PJSC National Bank Trust v Mints [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm) on the ability of sanctioned persons to pursue litigation, in which Enyo acted for the Mints family.

However, this downturn does not appear to be a lasting trend. In 2024/2025, the number of Russian litigants rose markedly to 60, with 80% represented by legal counsel – a striking contrast to the previous year. Two key factors can be said to have contributed to this rebound: (i) a more sophisticated understanding of the sanctions regime within the legal profession; and (ii) the increase by OFSI of the legal fee cap under the relevant General Licence to £2,000,000 for professional legal fees and counsel’s fees, which came into effect at the end of October 2024.

Also breaking records is the number of litigants from the UAE, with 68 litigants coming from that jurisdiction. Not only is this a 113% increase in over two years, but Portland’s reported statistics suggest that the UAE is now second only to the UK itself as a source of litigants in the Commercial Court (ahead of Russia, Switzerland and India).  Confidence in English law, and the English Commercial Court system appears to be alive, and growing, in the UAE region.

However, this upward trend is not universal. Portland’s report highlights a notable decline in EU litigants, whose share fell to 16%, down from 24% in the previous period. Nevertheless, with an increasing proportion of litigants from other regions and a consistently high ratio of international to domestic parties, London continues to maintain its strong appeal as a forum for global commercial disputes.

Subject matter

New claims in 2023/2024 were largely “general commercial contracts and arrangements” (covering a very wide range of business disputes), arbitration-related matters, insurance/reinsurance, aviation and commercial fraud, consistent with previous years. Together, these categories comprised nearly 50% of new claims issued in 2023/2024 (leaving aside 90 new claims with unspecified subject matter).

Arbitration-related claims are a substantial portion of the Court’s work (reflecting London’s status as a pre-eminent arbitration forum) and amounted to around 20% of all claims issued in 2023/2024. A large subset of these claims were challenges to arbitral awards on grounds of jurisdiction (under 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996).  The modernised Arbitration Act 2025, which came into force on 1 August 2025, implements significant reforms to the s 67 challenge process by restricting the evidence and argument the Court will entertain on such applications. It is conceivable that the Court’s s 67 challenge workload will be lighter as a result, although time will tell.

Trial length

A trial length of two weeks or less remains most common in the Commercial Court, with 65% of trials  running for two weeks or less in 2023/2024. Most of those (18) concluded in less than a week.  Only 8 trials in the same period exceeded four weeks. The longest-running trial in the Court in 2023/2024 (with the exception of another multi-year matter) ran for 37 sitting days.

For litigants seeking an expeditious outcome, the Shorter Trials Scheme is available for cases which can be heard in four days or less. The Scheme is designed to facilitate a determination of the dispute within a year of the claim being issued. To that end, cases are tightly case-managed by a designated judge with an expectation of strict timetable adherence and little room for extensions.  Interlocutory applications are to be dealt with on the papers, factual witness statements are generally expected to be 25-pages or less and expert evidence (if any) is to be by report only.  Given those constraints, the Scheme is unsuitable for cases involving extensive document disclosure, substantial reliance on expert evidence and/or disputes involving a high degree of legal and factual complexity.  It is also unsuitable for cases involving allegations of fraud or dishonesty.  However, the Scheme is a popular and proven option for time-sensitive disputes of moderate complexity.

Settlement rates

Reporting from the Court indicates the settlement rate for matters going to hearing has tended to remain steady – approximately 29% in 2023/2024 (comparable to previous years, notwithstanding an increase in the number of matters listed for hearing). In contrast, a smaller number of trials were listed in 2023/2024 but a greater number heard – indicating a drop in settlement rate from 70% to 57% compared to the previous year. Likewise, in the LCCC, of the 50 trials listed, 30 were heard, indicating a settlement rate of just 42% as against higher rates in the three preceding years (78%, 69% and 76% respectively).

Judicial and government policy continues to encourage parties to explore possibilities for a negotiated settlement whenever possible. The most recent Commercial Court Guide envisages the potential for Negotiated Dispute Resolution (“NDR”) – such as mediation or bilaterial negotiation between the parties or their legal representatives – will be kept under review throughout the litigation.  Case-managing judges are empowered to make orders facilitating NDR at any stage of the proceedings and NDR is increasingly viewed as a standard and mainstream step (rather than an ‘alternative’ track only for appropriate cases). Anecdotally, we are seeing examples of judges ordering the parties to engage in NDR relatively early (eg at the case management conference stage).  This suggests that the judiciary continue to be acutely aware of the cost of litigating in the Commercial Court as compared to the value of many of the claims that come before them.

Concluding remarks

The Commercial Court continues to be a key venue for resolving complex commercial disputes. While its caseload remains high, recent policy changes are diverting a greater number of mid-value claims to the LCCC and helping to manage overall workflow. The Court’s international reach is clear, with increasing numbers of litigants from certain jurisdictions balancing out the decline in EU presence. Overall, the Court is adapting to demand while maintaining its role as a leading forum for international commercial litigation.

Enyo frequently acts for clients contemplating, pursuing or defending proceedings in the Commercial Court or LCCC. Should you have any questions about prospective litigation in either court, please do get in touch.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this article further, please contact Anna Maxwell.