Since the start of the year, we have conducted numerous lender meetings to strengthen relationships and improve claimant outcomes, allowing for the highest potential for success.

To meet increasing demand for these claims and accelerate service delivery, we have increased the size of our support team by 40%. Additionally, we have invested in cutting-edge technology and AI integration, optimising our systems to better serve our claimants.

This quarter, we have secured more than £168,000 in settlement offers across all lenders, achieving an average refund of £4,355 per case.

Additionally, after submitting more than 1,000 cases this year to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) due to unaddressed claims, we are confident of achieving an increase in positive outcomes for our claimants in the future.

Our approach leverages credit file access, open banking and bank statement reviews, combined with thorough financial assessments, ensuring a robust process that serves the industry best practices.

South Staffs Water

After issuing court proceedings in the London High Court against South Staff Water, we can now confirm a holding defence has been received. Now that we are in possession of this, we will be requesting the court to list a case management hearing which will allow the parties to narrow down any points of dispute and proceed with litigation. In the meantime, we are trying to engage with the defendant with the aim of trying to reach a positive outcome for the claimants.

Please note, we have stopped onboarding new claimants concerning this data breach.

Capita                                  

Following the application submitted to the High Court to add an additional 3,000-plus claimants, we have now also stopped onboarding new claimants concerning this data breach.

We have now filed a Part 8 court application at Manchester County Court seeking confirmation about what information Capita held for the claimants. Capita has refused to provide this information in previous correspondence. There is a case management hearing listed for June 18 and 19. This will help parties try to narrow down issues and seek a timetable from the court about proceeding with litigation.

Meanwhile, we continue to engage with the defendants with the aim of trying to reach a satisfactory outcome.

Shared Secret Services Ltd

Following communications with the defendant’s legal representatives, they have firmly denied that any data was exfiltrated from their systems. As the scope of affected individuals continues to grow beyond what we initially expected, we are still onboarding additional claimants. We are in the process of compiling a list of additional personnel who may have been impacted but did not receive the initial breach notification.

We will seek confirmation from the defendant on whether the data from these claimants has been compromised. Once we have this confirmation, we anticipate initiating proceedings in the High Court in London in the coming months.

Zellis

We are currently waiting for a date from the High Court in London concerning the case management hearing. This hearing is a crucial step in the legal process, as it will determine how the class action claim will move forward. During this hearing, we expect to gain clarity on the procedural direction of the case, including key timelines and next steps that the judge will order. We are also continuing to engage with the defendants’ legal representatives with the aim of trying to settle this claim.

Google/Microsoft Data Misuse

After various conferences with our specialist barrister, we have now agreed a draft of the documents to send to the defendants. We will be writing to them shortly and formally putting them on notice concerning our involvement in this claim. The defendant will have up to three months to respond to our letters.

Arnold Clark

We are finalising the last steps of our action against Arnold Clark and plan to issue court proceedings in the High Court in London shortly.

All of the litigated claims have been ‘stayed’ pending a Court of Appeal decision on the Expert Tooling case.

The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment with far-reaching consequences for commissions disputes, particularly Business Energy claims. 

The verdict overruled a ruling on the first business energy commission claim to be heard in the High Court, which should provide some clarity on future cases dealing with commissions paid to brokers. 

In the case of Expert Tooling and Automation Limited v Engie Power Limited [2024], the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of liability concerning ‘half-secret’ commissions, in which an agent or broker receives a commission from a third party with only partial disclosure to the customer. 

Expert Tooling and Automation Limited (“Tooling”), a tool manufacturer with significant energy consumption, engaged Utilitywise Plc (“UW”) to negotiate electricity supply contracts with Engie Power Limited (“Engie”). UW received commissions from Engie, which were incorporated into the electricity unit prices charged to Tooling. While Tooling was aware that UW would receive commissions from Engie, no specific details were given. 

The value of commission to the defendant was a six-figure sum. 

UW was dissolved in 2022, and so Tooling initiated legal action against Engie, asserting that UW owed fiduciary duties to them, including avoiding conflicts of interest. Tooling argued that UW’s receipt of undisclosed commissions from Engie constituted a breach of these duties, and that Engie, by paying these commissions, induced UW’s breach of duty. Consequently, Tooling sought to recover the commission amounts as money had and received, or alternatively, as equitable compensation. 

Lord Justice Zacaroli’s Court of Appeal judgment examined the nature of the commissions and the disclosure provided to Tooling. The court referenced the precedent set in Hurstanger Ltd v Wilson [2007], when it was established that an agent receiving commission from a third party, without the principal’s informed consent, can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. This is particularly true when the principal is unaware of the commission’s existence (fully secret) or its amount (half secret). 

The Court of Appeal concluded that UW’s acceptance of commissions, without full disclosure to Tooling, breached its fiduciary duties, and that Engie – by facilitating these payments – was liable for inducing UW’s breach.  

As a result, Tooling was entitled to recover the amounts of the commissions paid to UW. 

This judgment underscores the critical importance of transparency in commercial relationships, particularly concerning commissions and potential conflicts of interest. It reaffirms that agents must fully disclose any commissions received from third parties to their principals to avoid breaching fiduciary duties. Additionally, third parties offering such commissions may be held liable if they induce an agent’s breach of duty. 

Now that further clarification has been provided, we will begin our next steps in the progression of these claims.

In the interim, we are continuing to issue cases for claims that have not been ‘stayed’. We have also encountered defendants who do not disclose commission payments. To obtain this information, we have selected lead claimants, and we are in the process of finalising a pre-action disclosure application. We have had several conferences with Counsel, and we will be proceeding with this shortly

Radius Cases

These cases are still progressing towards settlement, with most being at the stage where quantum is being discussed with the insurers.  Many of the disputes are in relation to issues such as re-triggers and periods of loss but, ultimately, we anticipate that settlements will be reached in all cases.

Premises Cases

In December 2024, the Supreme Court refused permission to the insurers who wished to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the ‘At the Premises’ appeals, which had been handed down in September 2024. This ended all rights of appeal, meaning that the decision of the Court of Appeal is now binding in all ‘At the Premises’ claims.

While the Supreme Court’s decision on the permission request was awaited, we proactively contacted all other affected insurers to seek their engagement over issues of evidence and quantum with a view to narrowing the issues. Our aim was and still is to move all affected cases closer to settlement without the need for further litigation, albeit how quickly this can occur will be largely down to the attitude of the insurers. We have now contacted all affected insurers and are receiving their responses which, in the main, are broadly in agreement with our proposals. As such, we are now submitting evidence to those insurers who have indicated that they are prepared to consider it, with a view to moving on to discussing settlement if it is agreed that the evidential threshold required to trigger cover has been met. In addition, we are hoping to be able to facilitate settlement meetings, where appropriate, with defendants’ solicitors in the coming weeks where we receive positive indication that their insurer client is keen to settle.

Public Emergency Cases

Barings are still pressing forward with numerous different categories of public emergency-related policies which are at varying stages of progression.

Current Legislation

These cases are moving closer to settlement. One cohort of claims is subject to a stay of the litigation to allow settlement of all claims to be achieved, and in another cohort, we are discussing policy triggers with the insurers and seeking to put forward loss valuations for agreement.

AA Clauses

We have made good progress with these claims over the past few months, with most insurers now contemplating settlement in principle but disputing issues such as re-triggers. As such, our focus is on quantifying losses and formulating our arguments over re-triggers with a view to entering settlement negotiations.

Denial of Access Cases

One cohort of claims was subject to a Costs and Case Management Conference in January, at which it was ordered that a preliminary issues trial on the issue of policy construction be listed for November 2025. In terms of a further cohort, we have received commercial offers but are quantifying the losses with a view to achieving settlement at a higher level.

While the Court of Appeal decision on the ‘incident’ wording in the case of International Entertainment Holdings v Allianz went in favour of the insurers, the other claims that we have with similar wording are wider in their scope and so we are proceeding with the litigation in this area.

Bomb Hoax Clause Cases

These claims are continuing to progress positively, with several settlements having been achieved and offers continuing to be received in respect of the unresolved claims. Our focus, aside from reviewing and advising on the offers received, is on financial evidence gathering for those claims where this remains outstanding. We intend to present all claims to the insurers for consideration and prompt payment.

Quarterly Settlement Performance

During the period December 2024 to February 2025, we have agreed interim or final damages of more than £1.2M on behalf of 58 clients, with a number of other offers having been received from insurers which are being reviewed and discussed with clients.

We have some important updates this month regarding the Undisclosed Commission (UDC) cases.

The UDC test cases, which were issued at court last year, are currently being ‘stayed’ by the courts awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court Appeal in the motor finance cases of Johnson v. Firstrand Bank Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, which are three conjoined appeals in respect of secret commissions. The appeals have recently received a lot of media attention due to their significance to the secret commissions claims industry. 

The government’s treasury department and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) made applications to intervene and make representations when the appeal is heard next month, amid concerns that a victory for claimants could damage the motor finance industry. While the court denied the government permission, the FCA’s application was successful and, as such, they will be making representations at the April appeal hearing. A decision is expected to be handed down several months later. 

The decision in these appeals will have an impact on UDC claims and, as the previous decision in the Court of Appeal (COA) was positive and in favour of the consumers, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the COA.

While we await the outcome of the appeals we are continuing to try to settle undisclosed commission claims using the successful arguments from the COA decision. However, so far the lenders are not willing to settle the claims, but their position may change following the decision in the appeal cases.

We mentioned in our previous newsletter that we had an ongoing appeal which was due to be heard in court on 17th January. This appeal focused on half-secret commission claims. The aim of this appeal is to set a precedent allowing borrowers to claim against the new lenders to whom loans were transferred, or alternatively, the original creditor even after the transfer of the loan. We are awaiting the decision of the court which was reserved to be handed down at a later date. We do not currently have a date for this but expect to receive one soon.

We would like to thank you for your patience and hope to provide you with a further update when we receive the decision in our appeal case and in the motor finance appeals.

Barings Law continues to represent a plethora of clients who have suffered significant financial losses. These losses could be due to negligent advice and/or the failure of parties involved in facilitating pension transfers to fulfil their obligations and conduct adequate due diligence before transferring pension benefits.

This quarter, the Pensions department has observed a notable increase in the number of upheld complaints, both directly with defendants and through the Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme. This underscores the critical importance of providing appropriate advice and completing thorough due diligence and the need for all parties involved in pension transfers to adhere to their fiduciary responsibilities to protect clients’ financial interests.

Barings Law are continuing to represent hundreds of clients that have fallen victim to sophisticated scam operations resulting in significant financial losses.

This quarter, the Banking Claims department have seen a dramatic increase in upheld claims from numerous financial providers for their failure to implement appropriate fraud prevention measures to identify unusual spending habits, high-risk recipients, and the hallmarks of potential scam operations.

Our dedicated team of legal experts will continue to work tirelessly to recover lost funds and provide much-needed support and assistance to those affected.

The Irresponsible Lending department is continuing to successfully represent clients who have fallen victim to irresponsible lending practices, resulting in significant financial distress.

Our dedicated team continues to represent a vast amount of irresponsible lending cases over numerous product types including credit cards, store cards, catalogue cards, unsecured personal loans and gambling affordability.

We have continued to utilise the services of third parties such as the Financial Ombudsman Service to review and consider claims in which lenders have failed to fulfil their statutory obligations in relation to affordability and creditworthiness checks. This quarter we have seen an increase in upheld complaints and are awaiting the findings of several cases to determine our clients’ eligibility for a refund of interest and associated charges under their agreements.

Barings Law continues to work tirelessly to aid those affected by irresponsible lending practices and provide invaluable support.

Last year we achieved an outstanding 90% success rate in immigration and asylum cases. In 2025, we remain committed to maintaining and exceeding this standard by continuing to represent clients across a wide range of immigration matters, advocating for their rights and securing the best possible outcomes.

This quarter, we have already achieved the following results:

Bail Hearings

We represented three clients in bail hearings, all of whom were granted immigration bail by the tribunal judge. These individuals have pending asylum cases, and the tribunal judge recognised their right to remain in the UK while their claims are being processed.

Challenging Unlawful Removals

We successfully challenged three cases at the Upper Tribunal, preventing unlawful removals in all three cases. The Home Office had issued removal directions, but the Upper Tribunal Judge granted a stay, leading to their removals being cancelled. As a result, our clients were released on immigration bail and are now awaiting further decisions on their outstanding reconsideration claims. Additionally, we are awaiting compensation from the Home Office for the clients who incurred unnecessary expenses due to their failure to properly assess their decision. They have provided us with a consent order to withdraw the judicial review application, agreeing to reconsider their decision and cover the applicants’ fees.

EU Client Granted Permission to Stay

We secured permission to stay for an EU national who applied under exceptional circumstances, outside the standard immigration rules. The client, who is in a long-term relationship with an unmarried partner and is a stepfather to their children, can now remain in the UK and continue his family life.

Asylum Appeal Awaiting Decision

We recently represented a client in an asylum appeal before the First-Tier Tribunal. A decision is expected shortly on whether the client will be granted leave to remain in the UK under human rights protections.

Skilled Worker Visa Application

We were successful in a skilled worker visa application that we submitted. The client has been granted the right to work for their specific employer in the UK.