Class actions in England and Wales 2026

Class actions continue to play a prominent role in the legal landscape of England and Wales. New trends are emerging across competition, securities and ESG litigation, reshaping both opportunities and challenges for stakeholders. This article explores the current state of play and considers the outlook for class actions in 2026.

Competition class actions

The specialist collective proceedings regime allows class representatives to bring large-scale competition claims on an “opt-out” basis, meaning that claimants themselves are not required to sign up at the outset of a claim. A decade after its creation, the regime is beginning to yield its first settlements and substantive judgments. Initial assessments can therefore be made regarding the regime’s effectiveness in delivering redress for class members, and returns for the funders and law firms invested in its success.

Certification

While certification remains a low hurdle, in 2025 the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) exhibited a more critical approach and refused to certify claims on a variety of grounds. These included concerns about a class representative’s independence (Riefa), statutory preclusion of a novel claim concerning alleged environmental breaches by water companies (Roberts), issues with class definition, methodology and cost-benefit analysis (PRS), and limitation issues (Gutmann Handsets). These decisions delineate the outer boundaries of the types of claims that the CAT is prepared to certify. Following the Supreme Court’s recent FX judgment endorsing the CAT’s refusal to certify the proposed follow-on claims on an opt-out basis, opt-in v opt-out is likely to become a key certification battleground inviting early merits assessment by the CAT.

Substantive outcomes

Settlement outcomes have so far been underwhelming for consumers. The CAT approved a collective settlement of just £200 million in Merricks – a small fraction of the original £14 billion claim value. Less than 1% was claimed in the first £25 million settlement distribution (in Boundary Fares), with the CAT indicating that anticipated take-up will be an area of future focus at certification.

The three judgments issued on the substantive merits of claims present a mixed picture. The CAT dismissed the claims in both Le Patourel and Boundary Fares – the former for failing to prove that BT’s excessive pricing was unfair, and the latter for failing to prove that the train operators’ sales and marketing practices were abusive. In that context, the CAT observed that “competition law is not a general law of consumer protection”. However, the recent findings of abuse against Apple in the Kent judgment may go some way towards restoring confidence in the regime’s ability to deliver large-scale compensation. Judgments are also pending in several further cases.

Review

Although only a handful of cases have resulted in settlements or judgments so far, the regime is already under review, with the UK government questioning whether it effectively provides access to justice for consumers without overburdening businesses. The government’s call for evidence suggests some scepticism, indicating that in the short term, reform efforts will likely prioritise improving the regime’s efficiency, rather than expanding it to other sectors.

Securities litigation

There is no sign that the rapid growth in securities litigation is slowing down.

An unresolved issue is whether passive investors can bring claims for misleading statements in published information, even if they did not read or consider the information. Two recent English High Court claims (against Barclays and Standard Chartered) came to opposite conclusions, with the latter case acknowledging the possibility of passive investors establishing (with the benefit of expert evidence) “price/market reliance”, i.e. relying on the market to set the price of securities based on the truthfulness and accuracy of the published information accessible to other market participants.

In a welcome development, the Court of Appeal in Wirral v Indivior [2025] rejected investors’ attempts to use the “representative claimant” procedure under the English Civil Procedure Rules to establish an “opt-out” mass claim mechanism by the backdoor. This decision is the last word because the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal.

The abolition of the shareholder rule

The abolition of the shareholder rule by the Privy Council in 2025 means that companies can assert privilege against their shareholders, unless the usual exceptions apply. Shareholder claimants often seek broad and early disclosure in securities litigation, including a company’s legal advice, and this judgment therefore provides welcome news for companies defending such claims. The judgment represents a significant shift in the law – as Lord Briggs and Lady Rose observed: “Like the emperor wearing no clothes in the folktale, it is time to recognise and declare that the [Shareholder] Rule is altogether unclothed ”.

ESG class actions

Some of the most significant ongoing ESG class actions in the English courts (including those against BHP, Dyson, Shell, BAT/Imperial and Brazil Iron) are mass tort claims for alleged environmental damage and/or issues with labour conditions in respect of harm which has been suffered overseas, alongside other ESG-related litigation such as the "Dieselgate" claims against car manufacturers relating to the alleged use of "defeat devices". Various unsuccessful jurisdiction challenges demonstrate the English courts’ continued willingness to accept jurisdiction over claims with strong territorial connections to other jurisdictions (particularly in circumstances where the parent entity is domiciled in England). These are all “opt-in” claims which require claimants proactively to sign up.

Climate-based class actions may also be on the rise in the English courts. In December 2025, individuals from impacted Philippines communities issued a claim against Shell in the English High Court for damages in connection with Typhoon Odette, which struck the Philippines in December 2021. The claimants allege that Shell’s actions materially contributed to anthropogenic climate change, which significantly intensified the typhoon’s impact and likelihood.

It remains to be seen whether recent international judgments hailed as landmark for climate activists, such as Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and Luciano Lliuya, will impact climate litigation in England and Wales. With respect to greenwashing, increased UK regulatory focus from the Financial Conduct Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority, including following the coming into force of the consumer law enforcement regime under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), could lead to investor and/or consumer green action. It will also be interesting to see whether anti-ESG sentiment, which has been on the rise in the US, has any influence.

A diverse and evolving spectrum of claims

Looking ahead, the class actions landscape remains dynamic and will continue to be informed by international developments, emerging regulatory trends, the availability of funding and shifting societal expectations. Stakeholders should anticipate ongoing complexity in the range of class actions coming before the courts.